Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 82

Thread: Same-sex Marriage.

  1. #21
    Senior Member Revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    28
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pntbll248 View Post
    You could always look towards arguments regarding natural order. I'm not a huge fan of natural order authority myself, as I believe humans are free moral agents who are free to defy their own nature. But, as a quick synopsis: Things ought to behave according to their nature. Humans naturally form mating pairs with the opposite sex, thus all humans ought to form mating pairs with the opposite sex. Quick notes: Doesn't apply to things like cars and medicine (ie, you can't disqualify the natural order argument by saying that cars are not natural so therefore we shouldn't use them) because tool use is a natural trait of humans. Also, if humans naturally make free moral choices and are not bound by their nature, then this argument falls apart.
    (emphasis added)
    Forgive my ignorance, but could you back the bolded bit up with something? Because as it stands, the assumption doesn't seem justified in my eyes. This of course delves into the definition of what is "natural", which is still up for grabs. If we take natural to mean something that is readily found in nature, then this natural order argument doesn't work.
    And as a follow up question: What reason is there to think that what is natural (whatever definition you're using) for some humans should also be natural to all humans?

    For Wicked, this video pretty much sums up any and all arguments I've heard against same-sex marriage, secular or otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o
    Alas, the arguments are very simplified (maybe overly so) for the sake of emphasis. But any argument that I've heard so far can eventually be boiled down to one or several of the points made in that video.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Revo View Post
    Forgive my ignorance, but could you back the bolded bit up with something? Because as it stands, the assumption doesn't seem justified in my eyes. This of course delves into the definition of what is "natural", which is still up for grabs. If we take natural to mean something that is readily found in nature, then this natural order argument doesn't work.
    And as a follow up question: What reason is there to think that what is natural (whatever definition you're using) for some humans should also be natural to all humans?

    For Wicked, this video pretty much sums up any and all arguments I've heard against same-sex marriage, secular or otherwise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o
    Alas, the arguments are very simplified (maybe overly so) for the sake of emphasis. But any argument that I've heard so far can eventually be boiled down to one or several of the points made in that video.
    I may have simplified the argument a bit, given that I only used a few sentences to sum up an argument that took around eighty pages to defend. This is an argument that's generally accepted within academic philosophy as being troublesome for natural order theory (NOT); I'll try to find you a link to the actual argument. Natural order is its own authority (such as Divine Command Theory, or other authorities), there is no higher power to define what is natural and what is not. Our definition of what is natural does not change what is actually natural -- our definition would simply be incorrect. If I recall, in NOT you use a prototype of a species. The prototypical human naturally forms mating pairs with the opposite sex -- That's how their physiology works, and if this was not true, then there would be no species homo sapiens.

    To clarify, another argument would be:
    1. Hippos naturally belong in the water
    2. One hippo never enters the water
    3. That hippo is not fulfilling its inherent "hippo-ness," that is not good

    I'm afraid that I can't really help you with natural order beyond that, as I said before, I really don't drink the kool-aid with natural order theory because of some pretty big holes. My biggest problem isn't the definition of what's natural, but why behaving according to one's nature is all that important for free moral agents.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    28
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pntbll248 View Post
    I may have simplified the argument a bit, given that I only used a few sentences to sum up an argument that took around eighty pages to defend. This is an argument that's generally accepted within academic philosophy as being troublesome for natural order theory (NOT); I'll try to find you a link to the actual argument. Natural order is its own authority (such as Divine Command Theory, or other authorities), there is no higher power to define what is natural and what is not. Our definition of what is natural does not change what is actually natural -- our definition would simply be incorrect. If I recall, in NOT you use a prototype of a species. The prototypical human naturally forms mating pairs with the opposite sex -- That's how their physiology works, and if this was not true, then there would be no species homo sapiens.

    To clarify, another argument would be:
    1. Hippos naturally belong in the water
    2. One hippo never enters the water
    3. That hippo is not fulfilling its inherent "hippo-ness," that is not good

    I'm afraid that I can't really help you with natural order beyond that, as I said before, I really don't drink the kool-aid with natural order theory because of some pretty big holes. My biggest problem isn't the definition of what's natural, but why behaving according to one's nature is all that important for free moral agents.
    No fear, your post filled my curiosity well enough. Thanks.
    And I just need to say that I have now fallen in love with the word "hippo-ness"

  4. #24
    Senior Member ThiagoPE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Recife/PE - Brazil
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,481
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    wow, even here!

    Brazil has legalized the same-sex mariage last week, and so its the subject of the moment here, lotīs of "couples" are making their marriage ceremony.

    If you want my opinion, I think everone has the right to share their live with anyone who he/she wants, the govern can even grant rights, recognizing them as a "stable union" , however "marriage" for me is a synonimun of "become a family", which same sex coulples canīt be naturally...

  5. #25
    Super Moderator Azerane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Age
    31
    Posts
    4,638
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I don't mean to squeeze in the middle of a conversation here, but I was watching tv last night and I caught a commercial about gay marriage. It started with a shot of a wedding cake with the groom topper on the top and a woman saying "I've been making my son's wedding cake for years, and I want to finish it, but I can't until the australian government recognises my son's love' or something along those lines at which point she puts another male topper on the cake. I thought it was interesting.

    Tried to find it on youtube without success.
    That which you manifest is before you.

  6. #26
    Junior Member saitenyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Age
    33
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pntbll248 View Post
    Legally, I think that if two people are willing to share a monogamous, lifelong commitment, cohabitation, and partnership, then they should be afforded the legal protections of marriage. Otherwise, it's none of my business what people do in their private lives as long as no one's getting hurt.
    ^This.

    I support it fully from a legal standpoint, and a moral standpoint on a personal level. That said, even though I am not religious, I do feel individual religious organizations have a right to refuse to perform a religious marriage ceremony for whomever they choose, simply out of respect for individual customs and traditions, but this should have no bearing on legal marriage licenses and it is absurd to me that a religious policy is being enforced as a legal one in a country that is supposed to respect the notion of separation of church and state. tl;dr if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that's their call, but the couple should be allowed a marriage license recognized by the state/country. I always applaud any church or other religious group that does recognize and perform gay marriages within their institution but do not feel they ought to be forced to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by shadowland View Post
    As much as I'm cool with same-sex marriage, I'd like to point you that you don't need to be married to spend your life with someone you love, thats a crazy assumption to make.
    Well of course not, but it's still important to many people. Not to mention from a legal standpoint, marriage offers a lot of key benefits that are not otherwise recognized by the government. So it's totally understandable that many couples would want to be allowed to marry, even if it has no real bearing on the ability to make a decision to commit to a monogamous relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pntbll248 View Post
    You could always look towards arguments regarding natural order. I'm not a huge fan of natural order authority myself, as I believe humans are free moral agents who are free to defy their own nature. But, as a quick synopsis: Things ought to behave according to their nature. Humans naturally form mating pairs with the opposite sex, thus all humans ought to form mating pairs with the opposite sex.
    I think this is open to debate. We find homosexuality occurring naturally in many species, enough that one might argue there is some biological purpose for it (even though we may not know what this is yet). There have been many theories about it, ranging from population control to its role in social arrangements in large families with many sons. Natural order does not necessarily dictate that all members of a species should behave or function in the same way simply because the majority do. By that logic you could argue that in a species where, say, females vastly outnumbered the males, all members of the species ought to be female. Obviously that would be absurd as there is still a biological purpose for the males even if their numbers were fewer.

    From an evolutionary perspective, the "natural order" is only really concerned with what traits allow a species to continue. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with this in any way since A-It doesn't automatically preclude those members of the species from reproducing (some still do via egg/sperm donation) and B-Small numbers of a species not reproducing is not detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole, and may even be beneficial to aid against overpopulation or allow for more available caretakers of orphaned offspring.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by saitenyo View Post

    I think this is open to debate. We find homosexuality occurring naturally in many species, enough that one might argue there is some biological purpose for it (even though we may not know what this is yet). There have been many theories about it, ranging from population control to its role in social arrangements in large families with many sons. Natural order does not necessarily dictate that all members of a species should behave or function in the same way simply because the majority do. By that logic you could argue that in a species where, say, females vastly outnumbered the males, all members of the species ought to be female. Obviously that would be absurd as there is still a biological purpose for the males even if their numbers were fewer.

    From an evolutionary perspective, the "natural order" is only really concerned with what traits allow a species to continue. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with this in any way since A-It doesn't automatically preclude those members of the species from reproducing (some still do via egg/sperm donation) and B-Small numbers of a species not reproducing is not detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole, and may even be beneficial to aid against overpopulation or allow for more available caretakers of orphaned offspring.
    I was trying to fairly represent an argument that I don't support with two or three sentences. Ethical natural order and evolutionary natural order are two different subjects. One is a theory of moral dilemma, one is a matter of science -- they may often overlap, but they focus on two different things.

  8. #28
    The One True Orange Raize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    Age
    33
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    How can one apply ethics to nature? As humans we like to think we have all of the answers, but we don't actually know what it's like to be a lion, or deer, or frog, or tree, or what have you. It's the old saying "Walk a mile in my moccasins". We observe creatures from an outward position looking in. In the field of science we >believe< this gives us a sense of objectivity, but human pride MUST be taken into account whenever we observe. Pride in general MUST be taken into account when we view our own species too even. It's a severe weakness to objectivity. We judge things as 'good' and 'bad' based on our own personal experiences with what or who ever it may be, combined with any secondary information we know about it.

    Just because a hippo doesn't get in the water doesn't make the hippo 'bad', it makes it unique. For survival purposes, it may have less of a chance. As humans we have assumed that the goal throughout all of nature and for everything is survival. Our own species however commits suicide. And if nature/life's ultimate goal were survival, wouldn't the natural processes make it so that all creatures live longer and longer throughout time?

    I was left to my own devices. Many days fell away with nothing to show. And the walls kept tumbling down in the city that we love. Great clouds roll over the hills, bringing darkness from above. We were caught up and lost in all of our vices. Oh where do we begin; the rubble or our sins? But if you close your eyes, does it almost feel like nothing's changed at all?

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Raize View Post
    How can one apply ethics to nature? As humans we like to think we have all of the answers, but we don't actually know what it's like to be a lion, or deer, or frog, or tree, or what have you. It's the old saying "Walk a mile in my moccasins". We observe creatures from an outward position looking in. In the field of science we >believe< this gives us a sense of objectivity, but human pride MUST be taken into account whenever we observe. Pride in general MUST be taken into account when we view our own species too even. It's a severe weakness to objectivity. We judge things as 'good' and 'bad' based on our own personal experiences with what or who ever it may be, combined with any secondary information we know about it.

    Just because a hippo doesn't get in the water doesn't make the hippo 'bad', it makes it unique. For survival purposes, it may have less of a chance. As humans we have assumed that the goal throughout all of nature and for everything is survival. Our own species however commits suicide. And if nature/life's ultimate goal were survival, wouldn't the natural processes make it so that all creatures live longer and longer throughout time?
    I'm finished discussing natural order theory as, again, I do not prescribe to it. My ethical authority is best described as Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams, so I don't recognize natural law as its own ethical authority. If you are interested in natural law, you can read more about it in Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Cicero, and Kant.

  10. #30
    Aka STM (Administrator ) Sadiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,065
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by saitenyo View Post
    Not to mention from a legal standpoint, marriage offers a lot of key benefits that are not otherwise recognized by the government.
    ^ To add my two cents in the discussion. This reason alone should be enough to make it legal for same sex couples to marry. Not allowing them to marry is limiting their rights as a couple. So yeah if two people want to legalize their relationship, it should be no one else business but their own. Anyone saying otherwise isn't really thinking clearly as those two people being married would not probably effect on your life in any way.

    When it comes to same sex couples adopting thought ( even it's not exactly the subject here ) I don't directly have anything against that, I just don't think the society is not ready for such a thing yet. But as in personal opinion I wouldn't have any resistance.

    Lea members I have met: Fuzzy, Naline, Boos, Ruska, Tima, Talfasi, JambaB, Sharifu, Vidan, Muruwa, Taneli, Shadow, nathalie, Lucy , Amaryllis, This Land, Daniel, Lion King Stu, King Simba, Nephilim, KanuTGL, Lion_King_300, 2DieFR, Kenai, A-non-a-mus, Eva Janus, dlb138, Levin, HasiraKali, Revo, Simba The Enigma, Azerane and Xacheraus.

  11. #31
    Junior Member saitenyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Age
    33
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadiki View Post
    ^ To add my two cents in the discussion. This reason alone should be enough to make it legal for same sex couples to marry. Not allowing them to marry is limiting their rights as a couple. So yeah if two people want to legalize their relationship, it should be no one else business but their own. Anyone saying otherwise isn't really thinking clearly as those two people being married would not probably effect on your life in any way.
    Definitely. That's why I get so frustrated when people make the "Well they shouldn't need a piece of paper to prove their love!" argument. It's not about proving love. Sure, part of the reason I'd like to get married in the near future is because of the symbolism, but legal convenience is also a major factor.

    As someone in a committed relationship that is everything a marriage is minus the legal documentation (i.e. we're serious, living together, intend to marry, but just haven't taken that step yet since he feels it's appropriate to wait a certain period of time first) I can attest to how many little inconveniences arise that make me very much look forward to the legal union. When you're dealing with things like taxes, emergency medical contact numbers, medical insurance, bank accounts, etc. it's just much easier to be legally married.

  12. #32
    Aka STM (Administrator ) Sadiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,065
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Well it's also couples in long distance relationship, like me and Audra were. For us to be together it pretty much meant getting married. Now I seen a few of documentaries of couples of same sex in long distance relationship and there is no way for them to live together unless they can get another way for the person to move which in most cases is extremely difficult. But that is just one of the multiple legal things marriage brings.

    Lea members I have met: Fuzzy, Naline, Boos, Ruska, Tima, Talfasi, JambaB, Sharifu, Vidan, Muruwa, Taneli, Shadow, nathalie, Lucy , Amaryllis, This Land, Daniel, Lion King Stu, King Simba, Nephilim, KanuTGL, Lion_King_300, 2DieFR, Kenai, A-non-a-mus, Eva Janus, dlb138, Levin, HasiraKali, Revo, Simba The Enigma, Azerane and Xacheraus.

  13. #33
    The One True Orange Raize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    Age
    33
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pntbll248 View Post
    I'm finished discussing natural order theory as, again, I do not prescribe to it. My ethical authority is best described as Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams, so I don't recognize natural law as its own ethical authority. If you are interested in natural law, you can read more about it in Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Cicero, and Kant.
    I hope I didn't upset you Pnt, that was most definitely not my intention, nor was it my intention to imply that you did subscribe to such a belief system as you had already stated that you didn't. I was more debating against that philosophy.


    Regarding other benefits of marriage... that actually is engrained in American culture (and I would imagine other cultures too?). I'm not sure if this is true for all states, but the state I live in it costs a man money to change his last name, but a woman does so for free. Why is this? Because it's a way to normalize and socialize the people of a population to a way that those in power and control like it; whether that be local or federal. I bring this up because it is an example of "the higher ups" controlling the general populace. A poor couple has to save up for wedding ceremonies (which are a right of passage in our society and the reason why both straight and gay couples don't prefer the court system), they will cut costs wherever they can. If it's already engrained in the cultural mindset that men should lead a household/family and if changing his name costs while hers doesn't - economic logic would state quite simply that she should change hers - perhaps that will save them enough to get another guest to the wedding?

    The government like to meddle. Obviously.

    I fully support marriage equality, I don't think anyone should ever be forced to marry others (there are growing numbers of clergymen for marriage equality in the world). I would no more want to impose someone to go against their personal moral rights for me than I would want them to go against mine; this leaves me to hope that they share that same ideal. Gaining one type of freedom and equality at the sacrifice of another isn't any good.

    I was left to my own devices. Many days fell away with nothing to show. And the walls kept tumbling down in the city that we love. Great clouds roll over the hills, bringing darkness from above. We were caught up and lost in all of our vices. Oh where do we begin; the rubble or our sins? But if you close your eyes, does it almost feel like nothing's changed at all?

  14. #34
    Senior Member Revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    28
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Raize View Post
    Regarding other benefits of marriage... that actually is engrained in American culture (and I would imagine other cultures too?). I'm not sure if this is true for all states, but the state I live in it costs a man money to change his last name, but a woman does so for free. Why is this? Because it's a way to normalize and socialize the people of a population to a way that those in power and control like it; whether that be local or federal. I bring this up because it is an example of "the higher ups" controlling the general populace. A poor couple has to save up for wedding ceremonies (which are a right of passage in our society and the reason why both straight and gay couples don't prefer the court system), they will cut costs wherever they can. If it's already engrained in the cultural mindset that men should lead a household/family and if changing his name costs while hers doesn't - economic logic would state quite simply that she should change hers - perhaps that will save them enough to get another guest to the wedding?

    The government like to meddle. Obviously.
    Frankly, I don't see what benefit "the higher ups" would gain by such a law. That wedding ceremonies are a "right of passage" and a cultural norm is not their fault. It is a cultural norm because generations before have made it so.
    Besides, why would the government or state officials (whichever is the case here) want the man to be the provident head of the family? In a capitalist society it is beneficial if the women are equally contributing and working the same amount as men.
    Besides, I don't think this directly relates to the marriage issue at all. You can get married nowadays without having the same surname. If it is a cultural norm to have the same surname, it is - again - not the fault of anyone today but the numerous generations before. There is no real obligation to have the same surname except personal preference and convenience, and I don't think that's a good enough basis to be picking on anybody else.

    I haven't heard of this specific law before, but I think it's one of those old laws that are just relics from the time when women didn't even have the right to vote. Like that one law in some state that says that if a woman is driving a car, the husband is to be walking infront of the car waving a flag. There are a lot of stupid state laws like that, and they are obviously not enforced anymore. Do you know if this name changing law is enforced in your state? If it is, I am sure it could be removed by simply taking the issue up with the people that have the power to do it. Because it's clearly unconstitutional.

    Out of curiosity, how much money does it cost for a man in your state to change his name? I can imagine that if lineages are somehow recorded in the public record asymmetrically (like following the matriarch line for example) regarding sexes, there might be some technicality that I'm ignorant of that might justify the cost for a man to change his name. But even then I don't imagine it would be very costly.

  15. #35
    The One True Orange Raize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    Age
    33
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Here's an article regarding the subject matter at hand first of all:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...marriage_N.htm

    I believe the price is 39.95 (Not that bad to be fair, but again, weddings cost a ton, you'd look to save anywhere you could, plus it goes with the cultural norm). This price is waived for WOMEN when marrying, but not for MEN.

    What would they gain? By my standards, nothing. But by their standards, they would gain a more patriarchal society. When laws are passed, a lot of time and energy does in fact go in to what is said in them. It is by no mere accident that this law exists. True, in a truly capitalist society it would be best if both men and women (and children too, in a truly capitalist society) would all work. We do not live in a truly capitalist society though here in the states; although we worship it enough you would think we did. We have child labor laws, welfare, unemployment, worker's comp., destruction of slavery, civil rights, vacation days, sick days, break rooms, UNIONS... none of these help a capitalist society (at least by the book anyway) they get in the way of profit. I could tell you how each of them does so, but I'm progressively getting more and more off the subject at hand.

    The point I'm trying to make though is that we don't solely value capitalism alone. While the debate rages over whether or not the united states was founded on Christianity or not, the truth of the matter is that the majority of Americans (whether practicing or not) still claim a form of Christianity. The traditional conservative view of Christianity (which in my personal experiences is the most popular in this country) says that men are to lead; they are the head of church and home alike. This feeling was at its peak in the 1950s with the ideal of the nuclear family (Husband works and the house is his castle, Wife stays at home raising the kids and obeying the husband, and there is one boy and one girl, and probably a dog <Nuclear family ideal).

    It IS the fault of the generation today too though Revo; they practice it still. You can't JUST blame the generations prior, you must also blame the current ones practicing it; we do have a little something called free will, they don't have to follow a cultural norm. Gay people for example don't really HAVE to get married, it's a cultural norm that they wish to practice so that they can acquire equal economic AND social benefits. Peer pressure pushes us, it's arguably the supreme shaping tool of culture, but there are countless examples of people who have not given in to peer pressure (even if that peer pressure meant death!). If we follow the logic of only blaming past generations, what about all of the people in favor of slavery at its end? What about all of the people opposed to women being able to vote the year they were allowed to? What about the era of the Civil Rights movement and the MANY offenses against African Americans? There's plenty of blame to go around, claiming that "we didn't start it" is no excuse, we're keeping it going and that's just as bad if not worse.

    I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just pointing it out, sorry if I offended anyone.

    I was left to my own devices. Many days fell away with nothing to show. And the walls kept tumbling down in the city that we love. Great clouds roll over the hills, bringing darkness from above. We were caught up and lost in all of our vices. Oh where do we begin; the rubble or our sins? But if you close your eyes, does it almost feel like nothing's changed at all?

  16. #36
    Senior Member Revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    28
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Hmm, looking at your previous 2 posts Raize I am very confused as to what it is you are trying to argue. I'll try to bring the source of my confusion forth as best I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raize View Post
    Here's an article regarding the subject matter at hand first of all:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...marriage_N.htm
    I believe the price is 39.95 (Not that bad to be fair, but again, weddings cost a ton, you'd look to save anywhere you could, plus it goes with the cultural norm). This price is waived for WOMEN when marrying, but not for MEN.

    What would they gain? By my standards, nothing. But by their standards, they would gain a more patriarchal society. When laws are passed, a lot of time and energy does in fact go in to what is said in them. It is by no mere accident that this law exists. True, in a truly capitalist society it would be best if both men and women (and children too, in a truly capitalist society) would all work. We do not live in a truly capitalist society though here in the states; although we worship it enough you would think we did. We have child labor laws, welfare, unemployment, worker's comp., destruction of slavery, civil rights, vacation days, sick days, break rooms, UNIONS... none of these help a capitalist society (at least by the book anyway) they get in the way of profit. I could tell you how each of them does so, but I'm progressively getting more and more off the subject at hand.
    I understood after your first post that in your view the higher-ups are seeking a more patriarchal society with having these laws in place. But my real question was, why would that be a desired goal for them in any case? I understand that USA is not a totally capitalist nation, I was just making that specific point because I thought that would be more along your line of though. Usually in my experience when people talk about the general concept of "higher-ups" in a derogatory manner, it's usually supposed to awaken connotations such as "selfish power-hungry capitalists" (to overemphasize a bit, that is. I don't suspect you being of such a strong opinion. )
    If this was not the case, I apologize for misunderstanding you position.
    But even in a more socialized community a patriarchal state does not bring any concrete benefits to the system as a whole when compared to to the alternative. If you are arguing that it is not actually a political agenda they are pursuing but a religious one, my response to that follows next.

    The point I'm trying to make though is that we don't solely value capitalism alone. While the debate rages over whether or not the united states was founded on Christianity or not, the truth of the matter is that the majority of Americans (whether practicing or not) still claim a form of Christianity. The traditional conservative view of Christianity (which in my personal experiences is the most popular in this country) says that men are to lead; they are the head of church and home alike. This feeling was at its peak in the 1950s with the ideal of the nuclear family (Husband works and the house is his castle, Wife stays at home raising the kids and obeying the husband, and there is one boy and one girl, and probably a dog <Nuclear family ideal).
    And the point I'm trying to make that whether or not the majority of Americans are Christians, the truth of the matter is (to follow your phrasing ) that Christianity does not have a say in legal issues due to the constitutional separation of church and state. Even if 99% of Americans were hardcore fundamentalists, it would still be unconstitutional for the church to impose its values of the law system. Any such laws that are in place as relics from an age when people didn't realize this are to be removed.

    It IS the fault of the generation today too though Revo; they practice it still. You can't JUST blame the generations prior, you must also blame the current ones practicing it; we do have a little something called free will, they don't have to follow a cultural norm. Gay people for example don't really HAVE to get married, it's a cultural norm that they wish to practice so that they can acquire equal economic AND social benefits. Peer pressure pushes us, it's arguably the supreme shaping tool of culture, but there are countless examples of people who have not given in to peer pressure (even if that peer pressure meant death!). If we follow the logic of only blaming past generations, what about all of the people in favor of slavery at its end? What about all of the people opposed to women being able to vote the year they were allowed to? What about the era of the Civil Rights movement and the MANY offenses against African Americans? There's plenty of blame to go around, claiming that "we didn't start it" is no excuse, we're keeping it going and that's just as bad if not worse.
    This is what confuses me the most, so I'm probably misunderstanding something somewhere. To explain my train of thought, from your first post I got the impression that in your opinion
    1) The higher-ups are pushing cultural norms and traditions on us to forward their own ideological goals, and
    2) We then have to follow these norms (and between the lines I read that the reason for this is peer pressure).

    I responded by pointing out that
    1) It is not the higher-ups that are pushing these norms on us, and
    2) We don't have to follow these norms if we don't want to.

    And now you say that
    1) We are all to blame for these norms and traditions (which is making me confused in regards to your first post), and
    2) We don't have to follow these norms if we don't want to give in to peer pressure. (also making me confused with your first post)

    Well I obviously agree with you on the second point, since I already pointed this out in the part where I said that people don't actually have to change their names at all to get married. I'm sorry if that point didn't go across.
    On the first point I guess I've got some explaining to do. I wasn't trying to assign blame to the past generations as much as I was trying to reduce blame from the direction I thought you were assigning it to; namely the government. In my honest opinion, there is no point in blaming anybody for our traditions and norms (in my eyes blaming the dead is the same as blaming no-one). They are what they are and they are ours to change if we want to. Peer pressure is a mental thing inside people's heads, it is not a real obstacle (talking about the present, not 200 years ago). You are hardly going to get killed or even scolded today if you decide to take your wives name instead of her taking yours. The only real punishment for your cultural crime is that 40$ fine. That just proves that society isn't perfect yet and there's still work to be done. The only way to change norms is to go against them. And if someone is "revolutionary" enough to make an uncommon decision regarding that their surname that is going to affect the rest their whole life, I think they probably have it in them to be "revolutionary" enough to have a 40$ cheaper wedding reception.
    But if it still bothers you, you can be the change. Take the issue up with people who have the power and I'm sure laws like these will eventually change. Just like you said, you can fight against the norm. No one is stopping that. There is no point in assigning blame when the thing is totally fixable.

    Btw, I don't at all consider gay people wanting to marry as them wanting to follow the norm. It might be part of the reason, but it's not the reason that matters. Gay people want to get married because it includes concrete legal benefits like you pointed out yourself. I consider the name-changing thing a norm-issue because it doesn't make any difference in the rights and equality of people whether or not they choose to change their names or not. There aren't any concrete legal benefits in changing a name one way or another, it is simply a matter of preference and minor convenience.

    So as I said, I'm confused. Do we disagree on something or do we agree on everything? I don't know. You tell me.
    I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just pointing it out, sorry if I offended anyone.
    I didn't mean you were picking on anyone here, I meant that you were assigning blame towards the government. No worries there .

    If you mods think this is going too off-topic, feel free to point it out. Would be sad to cut off the new blood this thread has received, though ..

  17. #37
    Aka STM (Administrator ) Sadiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,065
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Oh we are so going off topic here... HK bring out the ban hammer!.

    No not really, I can see the debate is taking it's turns but I don't really see the discussion taking turn totally off the subject, just using things to back up their opinion. I personally can't still and will probably never understand why gay couple wont be allowed to get married. Not just in states, I mean in overall. Now days marriage is not just religious thing and it's really not necessary for most people. In most cases it's up to people themselves to make that call if they want to be married or not. Plus religion never should be mixed into politics. I know it is, but I'm pointing out the words NEVER SHOULD, as when you make laws for society it should not be about what been said in some holy book, but what serves the society the best. I'm not talking about just US here either, but most of countries in this world. There is flaws in every country and in their law system and often making something better, means taking resources away from something else or increasing taxes, both seem to piss off people as people don't like losing money or facing something new. But I highly doubt that if every county allowed equal rights to everyone not looking at sex, race or religion, I doubt anyone after 100 years would complain that the change was made. I mean how many people in countries where women have pretty much equal rights do you see complaining about that?

    See even I go pretty far off the subject, but it still argues my point and opinion of why something should be done and gay marriage is part of it... So I shall spare myself from infraction... for now....

    Lea members I have met: Fuzzy, Naline, Boos, Ruska, Tima, Talfasi, JambaB, Sharifu, Vidan, Muruwa, Taneli, Shadow, nathalie, Lucy , Amaryllis, This Land, Daniel, Lion King Stu, King Simba, Nephilim, KanuTGL, Lion_King_300, 2DieFR, Kenai, A-non-a-mus, Eva Janus, dlb138, Levin, HasiraKali, Revo, Simba The Enigma, Azerane and Xacheraus.

  18. #38
    Senior Member Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    sweden
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Of course they are allowed to marry i mean there is nothing to argue.

    adopt children too, better they come to a home with 2 fathers/mothers and be loved to death then going from foster home to foster home the whole time.

    and the whole thing about it not being "natrual" its supose to be "male and female" lets have a little run down on what we humans do thats not natrual on a daily basis.

    -We Fly

    -Run on water

    - Go up in speeds, humans are not supose to, useing stuff like cars, Boats and plans.

    -we dont Hunt for our food anymore (most of us at least)

    - we communicate throw long distances " yay interwebs"

    i mean the list is endless, and Animals do do eachother of the same sex, its nothing new, ether if its just for fun or to establish dominance is out of the question they do it non the less.

    iv never thought of this as a disscussion at all, just people trying to stop progress, "sorry if that offends anyone"

  19. #39
    Senior Member shadowland's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Age
    27
    Posts
    621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Why does everyone call it "progress"? It's just change imo
    [SIGPIC]http://i55.tinypic.com/2jags50.jpg[/SIGPIC]

  20. #40
    Senior Member Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    sweden
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowland View Post
    Why does everyone call it "progress"? It's just change imo
    Because if the society goes away from something as obvious as denying two humans to love each other, that's progress.

    though that's just my personal opinion but i guess many people agree with me sense "everyone" calls it so.

    Remindes me of a scene i heard about where a family with gay parents " don't remember if it was male or female " went to a swimming pool, and thus they wanted to have the family price of course, though they where not allowed sense according to that person or what not, they where not under the definition of family " One pappa and one mamma"

    though they didn't go quietly but toke it all to court and stuff for discrimination, witch they won, so they could go to the swimming pool and of course it brught up alot of attention.

    i think that's a perfect example to why i myself at least call it progress.

Similar Threads

  1. A decent argument against homosexuality, esp. gay marriage.
    By Nephilim in forum The Shadowy Place
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: July 25th, 2005, 06:50 PM
  2. Gay marriage?
    By Xinithian in forum The Shadowy Place
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 11:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •