|
Corn syrup. Do not under estimate the evil. The US has a subsidized corn industry which leads to corn syrup being the #1 cheap sweetener. Corn syrup is far more unhealthy then sugar for the purposes of sweetening foods.... and the majority of their food is fresh and unpackaged (meaning without corn syrup).
If you believe that time is money, then the time that poor people spend exercising is a loss of money. So it does cost money, and most people don't want to spend this money exercising instead of resting.
Yeah, corn syrup is used in pretty much every processed product nowadays. I just threw that "corn syrup" in there to see if anyone would recognise the reference. Have you seen King Corn?
Oh and unhealthy food is much cheaper and quicker then healthy food, especially when you account for the time and effort that is required in planning and prepping for a healthy meal. Unhealthy meals require little to no thought.
Well at the end of the day, one chooses to be healthy or not - and if one chooses to be 'comfortable and relaxed at all times' then the reward is poor health... like I mean come on, too lazy to even think!?
Most of the healthy stuff doesn't even take that long to prepare, and you can prepare several portions.
I am a huge fan of making a large batch of vegetable soup, keeping a day or two worth in the fridge, and freezing up more portions in individual serving sizes. If I get short on time some days, or am too blown out and fatigued from work or exercise, its about as hard to make as putting in a bowl and nuking it. Seriously, its both easy and relatively cheap to eat healthy meals. For cheap eating - pulses, legumes, and grains are your best friend. They also last a looooong time.
The hard part is breaking the addiction to processed carbohydrates and the 'sweet tooth'.
You are totally correct in also looking at the 'discipline requirement' to set aside the time and to make schedules, patterns, and habits.
Anyhow, I also don't buy into that time=money mantra either ESPECIALLY for poor people. Economic circumstances is no valid argument when it comes to fitness - none at all.
Yeah, corn syrup is used in pretty much every processed product nowadays.
Doesn't taste nice either...I'll take straight up sugar over it any day.
|
|
Oh and unhealthy food is much cheaper and quicker then healthy food, especially when you account for the time and effort that is required in planning and prepping for a healthy meal. Unhealthy meals require little to no thought.Well at the end of the day, one chooses to be healthy or not - and if one chooses to be 'comfortable and relaxed at all times' then the reward is poor health... like I mean come on, too lazy to even think!?
Most of the healthy stuff doesn't even take that long to prepare, and you can prepare several portions.
I am a huge fan of making a large batch of vegetable soup, keeping a day or two worth in the fridge, and freezing up more portions in individual serving sizes. If I get short on time some days, or am too blown out and fatigued from work or exercise, its about as hard to make as putting in a bowl and nuking it. Seriously, its both easy and relatively cheap to eat healthy meals. For cheap eating - pulses, legumes, and grains are your best friend. They also last a looooong time.
The hard part is breaking the addiction to processed carbohydrates and the 'sweet tooth'.
You are totally correct in also looking at the 'discipline requirement' to set aside the time and to make schedules, patterns, and habits.
Anyhow, I also don't buy into that time=money mantra either ESPECIALLY for poor people. Economic circumstances is no valid argument when it comes to fitness - none at all.
Our society today believes that mantra utterly. Economically depressed people want to make money - that's why they're desperate for low-income, benefit-less, 8-hour jobs. People justify the time they spend relaxing as "me" time; they see exercise as work and want to do what they classify as "fun" in what little free time they have.
On the topic of your vegetable soup: It takes time and drive to do this. Humans are notoriously poor at altering their actions to plan ahead.Certainly, grains and legumes last a while. But Eggo and other garbage last equally long, and you can get Eggo at the corner market, requiring little money (even if you do drive), and the healthy food at the high-priced health food store.
Another troubling reason for people not exercising is the craze of fad diets. People don't want to change, so they decide to eat just as much, just stuff which is supposed to be "healthy." When people think they need to lose weight, they think of fad diets, and when they've done the fad diet they tell themselves that they've "tried."
Our society today believes that mantra utterly. Economically depressed people want to make money - that's why they're desperate for low-income, benefit-less, 8-hour jobs.
No kidding!
I grew up so poor we didn't have a pot to p*** in!
I know all about the money trap that people fall into, and aside from everything else they end up with on their plate, morale falls to the floor and depression can set in without them even realising that the rot is setting in.
People justify the time they spend relaxing as "me" time; they see exercise as work and want to do what they classify as "fun" in what little free time they have.
Yeah it is easier to switch off and tune out in a daze in front of the telly, but gaaaaaawd most of the programs are so bad I can't hack it for long. The closest I can do is grind away at MMO's, but even they have lost appeal. I'd prefer to read a book.
That said, some of the me time is now dedicated to...well...ME!.
Just like spending time keeping the Camaro in top running order, I have to maintain myself too :)
On the topic of your vegetable soup: It takes time and drive to do this. Humans are notoriously poor at altering their actions to plan ahead.
Then their choice is to be unhealthy. This means they aren't the victims of socio-economic circumstances, but are instead the masters of their own destiny. They bear the full responsibility of the outcome.
It is entirely up to them - no excuses.
Health education is pretty much free and widely available, and fitness costs next to nothing to obtain (by way of gear etc)
Bah, losing weight is not hard. Just take the extra 2 seconds before you buy something to eat to check how many calories it has, find your BMR and take in less calories than that. I’m in a weight loss competition right now for work, it’s been 7 days and I’ve lost 12 pounds.
Now, I’m taking in a lot less than my BMI, but if you’re not trying to lose a lot of weight quickly any amount less than your BMI will make you start losing weight. Oh, and water, drink lots of water. I like the crystal light individual packs, they’re only 5 calories per serving and many of them (but not all) have some good daily vitamins. If you keep drinking them all day not only will they keep you full of water, but also they will also keep you tasting some kind of flavor. Both of which help stave off hunger.
|
|
Bah, losing weight is not hard. Just take the extra 2 seconds before you buy something to eat to check how many calories it has, find your BMR and take in less calories than that. I’m in a weight loss competition right now for work, it’s been 7 days and I’ve lost 12 pounds.
Now, I’m taking in a lot less than my BMI, but if you’re not trying to lose a lot of weight quickly any amount less than your BMI will make you start losing weight. Oh, and water, drink lots of water. I like the crystal light individual packs, they’re only 5 calories per serving and many of them (but not all) have some good daily vitamins. If you keep drinking them all day not only will they keep you full of water, but also they will also keep you tasting some kind of flavor. Both of which help stave off hunger.
Ugh... bottled water? That stuff is horrible, for both your body and the environment. Reusable containers are much better.
|
|
Then their choice is to be unhealthy. This means they aren't the victims of socio-economic circumstances, but are instead the masters of their own destiny. They bear the full responsibility of the outcome.It is entirely up to them - no excuses.
Health education is pretty much free and widely available, and fitness costs next to nothing to obtain (by way of gear etc)
I think the main difference in our viewpoints is that I believe people can't always pull themselves up by the bootstraps (mentally), and you say that it's their own fault they are fat.
Ugh... bottled water? That stuff is horrible, for both your body and the environment. Reusable containers are much better.
...Don't remember saying bottled water anywhere in that post. I use a reusable water bottle. If I bought a bottle of water for the amount of water I'm drinking a day I'd be spending like $30 a week.
|
|
...Don't remember saying bottled water anywhere in that post. I use a reusable water bottle. If I bought a bottle of water for the amount of water I'm drinking a day I'd be spending like $30 a week.
Ugh... bottled water? That stuff is horrible, for both your body and the environment. Reusable containers are much better.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I just assumed that those "crystal light individual packets" were bottled water; now I realise that you're talking about some sort of tea thing.
I think the main difference in our viewpoints is that I believe people can't always pull themselves up by the bootstraps (mentally), and you say that it's their own fault they are fat.
Well my opinion on that is along the line of:
Yes I agree it can be challenging to make the steps in the right direction, and that there are a range of personal issues that can crop up - generally mental health issues (depression, addictions etc) and this may well stop a lot of people. I can deal with that, but at the end of the day I don't buy the guilt trip usually presented.People in a disadvantageous setting can still choose to seek assistance to help them up, or to find out about better nutrition and eating habits, or they can choose not to - either way they are being the decision makers and bear the responsibility (blame if you will) for their actions/inactions.
There is a lot of help and resources out there, but with it is going to come some pain, sweat, and tears - as well as some confronting attitude reconditioning.
If you choose to say no to that, and instead take the easy road... well whose decision is that, and what's the outcome?
Of course, I readily expect someone to come ripping by and starting to whine that this all infers some Liberal namby-pamby handouts and people should just 'tough it', however the resources, particularly information is freely available and intended to be that way :)
My other pointer would be to not buy into ANY of those diet crazes or hokey exercise machines on TV etc. They are all 100%BS, and when you try them (and inevitably FAIL) you will actually lose both morale AND money... two assets you can least afford to squander.
Oh, and water, drink lots of water.
This!
People (generally) are quite dehydrated and don't take on nearly enough fluids. This leads to fatigue, which in turn generates hunger (body wants fast energy to compensate).
Sugar, salt, and caffeine all have interesting effects on your body and its capacity to absorb water - worth considering!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
On the topic of your vegetable soup: It takes time and drive to do this. Humans are notoriously poor at altering their actions to plan ahead.Then their choice is to be unhealthy. This means they aren't the victims of socio-economic circumstances, but are instead the masters of their own destiny. They bear the full responsibility of the outcome.
Yummm. Eternal stew. I've got a pot on right now. It really doesn't take much work and just tastes better and better day after day. Add a new vegetable and some more beans each day, stir in some more water and you're good to go.
Nope, not much work at all. In fact, I knew a couple of chronic stoners who managed to keep a pot going for about a month before they overdid it and chowed down on the whole thing in one go. (The labor involved in washing the pot did prevent them from starting again, so I'll concede that some people may have a hard time with it.)
Healthy eating is easy and cheap.
Unfortunately it's hard to organize at first
At least that phase is over relatively quickly :)
Once you get teh staples down, and get through the experimenting phase, its all golden. You can still eat your junk foods, but just have them occasionally.
I like a bit of chocolate or a biscuit with my coffee, i just don't eat the whole block/packet.
|
|
I think the main difference in our viewpoints is that I believe people can't always pull themselves up by the bootstraps (mentally), and you say that it's their own fault they are fat.Well my opinion on that is along the line of:
Yes I agree it can be challenging to make the steps in the right direction, and that there are a range of personal issues that can crop up - generally mental health issues (depression, addictions etc) and this may well stop a lot of people. I can deal with that, but at the end of the day I don't buy the guilt trip usually presented.People in a disadvantageous setting can still choose to seek assistance to help them up, or to find out about better nutrition and eating habits, or they can choose not to - either way they are being the decision makers and bear the responsibility (blame if you will) for their actions/inactions.
There is a lot of help and resources out there, but with it is going to come some pain, sweat, and tears - as well as some confronting attitude reconditioning.
If you choose to say no to that, and instead take the easy road... well whose decision is that, and what's the outcome?
Of course, I readily expect someone to come ripping by and starting to whine that this all infers some Liberal namby-pamby handouts and people should just 'tough it', however the resources, particularly information is freely available and intended to be that way :)
My other pointer would be to not buy into ANY of those diet crazes or hokey exercise machines on TV etc. They are all 100%BS, and when you try them (and inevitably FAIL) you will actually lose both morale AND money... two assets you can least afford to squander.
I agree with your last point.
However, the people who are fat don't really have a lot of people around them who eat healthily. They have plenty of peer pressure to not be fat, but that's something they think about when they're getting dressed or trying to get a date, not when they're eating. And too many people have complexes concerning diet (and I'm not talking about fad diets), ranging from bulimia to simple attempts to find solace in food. Not only is America becoming fatter, we're also suffering from more mental/dietary health problems than ever before.Healthy food is inevitably harder to access than rubbish, thanks in large part to our amazingly strong fast food lobby. When people are "hungry," they don't want to wait. They eat what is accessible.
It has been proven many times over that founding a community garden lowers average weight and non-routine hospital visits.
People are social creatures (yeah, I know I'm making a lot of assumptions about people). When we see someone else doing something, it is more likely that we will do it too.
Certainly, some people are just slobs who don't feel bad about eating unhealthily. But the majority of obese people want to be healthy; they just lack that elusive quality, drive.
This drive can be fostered by benign social pressure; and even if this drive cannot be revived, overweight people can choose to eat healthily if it is just as easy as eating unhealthily.
I *used* to miss liberal gamers, but then I realized I used the wrong kind of Loctite on my scope mounts.
Is that an NRA t-shirt? ;p
Just to point out that in some poor communities they do not have access to a grocery store. Instead they have the equivalent of convenience stores (which if you have been in one recently, you know isn't exactly the hotbed of healthy eating). Many of the people in these communities do not have access to travel to and return with groceries from the more affluent areas.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Just to point out that in some poor communities they do not have access to a grocery store. Instead they have the equivalent of convenience stores (which if you have been in one recently, you know isn't exactly the hotbed of healthy eating). Many of the people in these communities do not have access to travel to and return with groceries from the more affluent areas.
Conceded.
Yet another failing of capitalism.
Healthy eating is easy and cheap for those who have access to a place to cook and stores that sell unprocessed foods such as potatoes, vegetables, beans, and meat.
Many of the people in these communities do not have access to travel to and return with groceries from the more affluent areas.
Aww c'mon, I'm yet to see a community in the world where you can't find a store selling rice, dried split peas, lentils etc.
Sure it may be a bit harder to get a hold of the fresh vegetables etc, but the store wouldn't be on the other side of the planet - you do your grocery shopping somewhere, and I doubt it's the 7-11.Most places I have been to have an Asian Grocer or the like, and they are great for picking up a lot of good things very cheaply. Of course I don't know where you live, so this may not be the case there.
Diet aside though, exercise is still the key part of the equation - and that ISN'T reliant on stores and travel.
Many of the people who would most benefit from healthier eating have both parents working at separate jobs. That takes 8+ hrs a day out of the pool, before household chores, paying bills, and raising the kids. Then they have to pay for childsitting... with money so tight, the parents try to stretch the dollar further. Preprocessed food is generally cheaper and lasts longer without spoiling. Preparing even a simple meal from scratch takes a not insignificant amount of time.
Kids are served mostly-crap food in school lunches, especially now with ever declining school budgets. PE programs are also being cut back. They are also bombarded with constant messages in advertising and peer pressure to think preprocessed and fast food is more desirable.
Healthy eating and fitness are a life-long mindset and process, and parents and kids aren't being taught this from childhood through adulthood. Better informed consumers will generally make healthier decisions.
(A couple decent classes in household budgeting and fiscal management in school wouldn't hurt either.)
Yet another failing of capitalism.Liberal communist anti-American atheist Muslim terrorist!
Whew, at least you didn't call him scruffy-looking. ;)
Tarren shot first.
Many of the people in these communities do not have access to travel to and return with groceries from the more affluent areas.Aww c'mon, I'm yet to see a community in the world where you can't find a store selling rice, dried split peas, lentils etc.
Sure it may be a bit harder to get a hold of the fresh vegetables etc, but the store wouldn't be on the other side of the planet - you do your grocery shopping somewhere, and I doubt it's the 7-11.Most places I have been to have an Asian Grocer or the like, and they are great for picking up a lot of good things very cheaply. Of course I don't know where you live, so this may not be the case there.
Diet aside though, exercise is still the key part of the equation - and that ISN'T reliant on stores and travel.
Well if you have four people living in a studio apartment, and the nearest park is overrun with gangs, to the point your likely to be killed faster than you'll die of a heart-attack, then it certainly can be an issue of travel and available resources.
<=tightens his "middle of the road belt" and laughs at both sides
Well if you have four people living in a studio apartment, and the nearest park is overrun with gangs, to the point your likely to be killed faster than you'll die of a heart-attack, then it certainly can be an issue of travel and available resources.
I tell you what; if indeed it is the case that the above is true, I will merrily point out to that 0.1% of people to whom it applies and tell them that their circumstances make it a nigh insurmountable battle.
Their only true options are to trench in and live with it, or find a way to move out.
The vast majority of people do not live in those circumstances though.
I have traveled to some horrible and nasty places (including the one I grew up in!) so I know what you are saying, but my opinion is that the real killing factor is lack of drive/understanding, as well as other mental issues and hang ups that we buy into from what 'society' tells us - you MUST look like X, you MUST wear Y. Not caring too much about all that guff becomes liberating.
Also, to a fairly significant extent you can IGNORE what the bathroom scales say, and take your BMI with a bag of salt - it's an 'indicator' not an 'answer'.
There are a load of solutions out there, and just about any shortfall can be overcome, but the person really needs to decide to change and decide to be 'up for the journey'
Do you guys have anything in the US like we have with the PCYC in Australia? Worked well in all the ghetto areas we had back in the day in turning around a lot of the street crime.
Back in the day the early PCYC (Police Boys Club) were just a bunch of burly Police constables and sergeants teaching the local streetkids how to box in a hall for free, but now they are pretty good at a range of activities for peanuts.
http://www.pcycnsw.org/prime_about_mission
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Kids are served mostly-crap food in school lunches, especially now with ever declining school budgets. PE programs are also being cut back. They are also bombarded with constant messages in advertising and peer pressure to think preprocessed and fast food is more desirable.
Healthy eating and fitness are a life-long mindset and process, and parents and kids aren't being taught this from childhood through adulthood. Better informed consumers will generally make healthier decisions.
You're right on all counts. Better funded schools with room in the curriculum for health, physical education, and critical thinking about consumption and citizenship would lead to a healthier society.
a bag of salt - it's an 'indicator' not an 'answer'.
It's a myth that you can have too much salt.
Do you guys have anything in the US like we have with the PCYC in Australia? Worked well in all the ghetto areas we had back in the day in turning around a lot of the street crime.
Back in the day the early PCYC (Police Boys Club) were just a bunch of burly Police constables and sergeants teaching the local streetkids how to box in a hall for free, but now they are pretty good at a range of activities for peanuts.
http://www.pcycnsw.org/prime_about_mission
Don't know about these days but in my youth there was PAL (Police Athletic League). I liked their programs, but I believe they declined with the urban exodus out of Detroit. Of course, when I was a kid, all of our activities were out of doors, cartoons were limited to Saturday morning, fast food was a rare treat, Mom was home, etc.
I have gas, can I blame Obama?
When I make chili my friends blame me for their gas. Rightly so! It is a weapon that must be tightly controlled, lest it overtake the world!There's even been talk of a Chili Disarmanent Compact at our gaming table, but someone always has to sneak in bio weapons.
hate America; not me; I love the TRUE vision of America; not necessarily anyones given opinion of America. As a historian; I have learned a lot about our Bright Shiny Moments; and our moments of Utter Blackhanded Vileness.
I see both sides of anyones views; pick and choose as I like.
now; can we separate the Sheep; who follow blindly lowing about their sides awesomeness, from the Goats that chart their own path who sometimes gain a bunch of sheep to follow them. hehe the key here is the Sheepdog; the smart guy that keeps the herd going the right direction; we need a few of these. Is Obama a good sheepdog for lowing masses; we shall see; am just watching; no judgements.
hehe little farm humor there; ever read Animal Farm or Parliment of Fowls; hehe if that second one is amazingly like our Senate or anyone's parliment ever.
Each side has their good points; and their bad points; and anythign taken to far turns out corrupt.
so; I gotta either tighten my belt and laugh; or take off my belt and whip some sense into some peeps.
Yer either with us or agin' us; whai do ye hate 'Merica so much?<=tightens his "middle of the road belt" and laughs at both sides
|
|
now; can we separate the Sheep; who follow blindly lowing about their sides awesomeness, from the Goats that chart their own path who sometimes gain a bunch of sheep to follow them. hehe the key here is the Sheepdog; the smart guy that keeps the herd going the right direction; we need a few of these. Is Obama a good sheepdog for lowing masses; we shall see; am just watching; no judgements.
Sheep don't low; they blat and s#&# all over your porch.
|
|
I have gas, can I blame Obama?When I make chili my friends blame me for their gas. Rightly so! It is a weapon that must be tightly controlled, lest it overtake the world!There's even been talk of a Chili Disarmanent Compact at our gaming table, but someone always has to sneak in bio weapons.
Mine would've been banned by the Geneva convention... >_<
I have gas, can I blame Obama?
Funny enough it's actually Biden's fault.
So, he cast the tie breaking vote in the senate that officially gave me gas?I have gas, can I blame Obama?Funny enough it's actually Biden's fault.
Nope, it was just one of those personal non-official things. You know, like Cheney shooting that guy in the face. Not sure what you did to piss Biden off, but he has it out for you.
|
|
Nope, it was just one of those personal non-official things. You know, like Cheney shooting that guy in the face. Not sure what you did to piss Biden off, but he has it out for you.So, he cast the tie breaking vote in the senate that officially gave me gas?I have gas, can I blame Obama?Funny enough it's actually Biden's fault.
He has no idea the destruction he's unleashed then. Turtles and snails regularly die around me during flatus since they cannot escape fast enough.
He has no idea the destruction he's unleashed then. Turtles and snails regularly die around me during flatus since they cannot escape fast enough.Nope, it was just one of those personal non-official things. You know, like Cheney shooting that guy in the face. Not sure what you did to piss Biden off, but he has it out for you.So, he cast the tie breaking vote in the senate that officially gave me gas?I have gas, can I blame Obama?Funny enough it's actually Biden's fault.
Oh, don't worry. That's all part of his plan. See, he also hates all creatures with shells.
What about the slugs? Its so sad to watch them shrivel up and die.
On his war against shelled creatures some collateral damage is acceptable.
You gotta hand it to Cheney though. He shoots someone and that person makes a national apology for being shot.
Nope, it was just one of those personal non-official things. You know, like Cheney shooting that guy in the face. Not sure what you did to piss Biden off, but he has it out for you.
Of course he did, Cheney is one of the top 3 scary sons of b@~+&es when he isn’t the vice president of the United States. He probably told Whittington “I’m going to need you to go on national television and apologize for getting shot. Otherwise, next time it might not be bird shot.” Had Whittington actually died, Cheney probably would have just said he had al qaeda ties.
We tried that approach with another problem last millennium. "Separate but Equal" didn't work back then either. The problem is that certain legal rights, property issues, medical matters, children, even the right to be at a loved one's bedside can turn on the legal artifact known as "marriage". Maybe the institution of Marriage itself should be decoupled from the religious rite but that would take a more fundamental reworking that would be a tougher sell.
Same thing for 'gay marriage'. Over on my Facebook, I posted an essay I originally put in the comments section on Gay Patriot, arguing from a conservative POV why an institution recognizing same sex partnerships ahould be created. I've also argued that no one has a 'right' to a government recognized marriage, any more than you have a 'right' to a Driver's license. In both cases the privilege of being recognized by the state is granted for meeting certain requirements. Someone born blind can't get a driver's license, nor can someone who has lost their vision later in life. I am all for an institution (my bad marriages aside, everyone should have a shot at it) created legislatively. Just...
Note: In the following wall of text I often speak in generalities and recognize that there are exceptions. Furthermore, I recognize that many of the situations described are not prevalent to the extent that they were when many laws were passed. Now for the wall of text:
I believe that the separate but equal comparison is a no go in this particular case. A union between a man and a woman is NOT the same as a union between two men is NOT the same as the union between two women. The differences in the unions mean that different factors are in play and that what would be considered important reasons for the state to intervene in one union type (which would involve the recognition of the union in some form and the passage of laws to define the state's involvement) may not be present in another. Or, if present, may not be present to the degree to warrant the state poking into the affairs of individuals.
Some elaboration...
MARITAL DIVISION OF ASSETS
One of the most common laws regarding marriage is the equal division of assets among the parties. Note: The specifics of this have changed with time as well as from state to state (speaking w/ respect to the US division of governments rather than the general term "the state") and is a general statement.
What brought the "state" to believe it needed to poke its nose into the affairs of a marriage and decide how assets should be allocated? For an answer to this the differences between men and women (biological) should be taken into account but more importantly how society treated men and women differently from each other when the bills were passed (and still does to an extent) should be examined.
First, although not as overriding a concern as in the past, pregnancy has always been an intrinsic part of the institution of marriage. Simple and to the point: women get pregnant and men don't. This creates a limited work availability for women which may impact the ability for a woman to produce an income. Although it has often been the case that the limitations of pregnancy have been overblown, they still exist. Further, the societal treatment differing between men and women is directly (although not completely correlated) to the perceptions of this difference and that has its own footprint in the marriage...
Secondly, men and women are treated differently by society. Although this has reduced in recent years it is still present and is important to defining what problem was being addressed by legislature that was passed with respect to marriage, specifically both the definition and the division of marital assets. Women were (and still are to an extent) guided by society to be the homemaker. Men, the breadwinner. Women are pressured by society to be the primary caregiver of the children in a family. Men, in general, have higher paying jobs with better benefits. Even to this day, one still hears about a successful businesswoman who will give up her career to become a full-time mother.
These two points result in the tendency for the development of a power discrepancy between the man and woman in a marriage. When one party has primary control of the financial production and the other party is saddled with the responsibility of being a primary caregiver the potential exists for the situation to be taken advantage of. With the house in his name and the bank account in his name and the wife being unable to work (due to time constraints as primary caregiver) or lacking in job skills (due to homemaking instead of developing those skills while the man developed his career) the relationship can be dominated. In the past (and yes this still occurs) women have remained in abusive relationships because they would be financially wrecked if they left them. Women who left the abuse would be destitute along with their children.
The state has recognized that society tends to pigeonhole men and women into differing roles and that these differing roles can create a power discrepancy which leads to unsavory conditions. The state decided to take actions to prevent women from staying in relationships where they got the s#~& kicked out of them because they had been conditioned by society to be submissive to men. The state decided to take action to prevent those women who stood tall and left their abusive relationships from being destitute on the streets with their children. That is why the state decided to create the stereotypical 50/50 allocation of assets within a marriage as defined by the union of a man and a woman etc.
SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN AND THE OTHER UNIONS AS RELATED TO THE ABOVE
An important aspect to look at as different is that of procreation. Procreation is intrinsic to the marriage between a man and a woman. Even in states with the most strict divorce laws, refusal to have children and infertility can be grounds for a divorce because the state recognizes the desire for a person to procreate. If a third party becomes essential to procreation (due to ovarian cancer for example) then a divorce will allow procreation without a third party becoming involved by allowing divorce. A union between two men can only have a child through adoption from a second set of parents or a female third party with one of the two males. A similar (vice versa) set of circumstances occurs with two women in a union.
Another case to look at is that of women being told by society (in varying degrees although it has greatly decreased) to be submissive to men. Men are told to be assertive and not submit the same way that women are. (Note: This means that they may be told to be submissive with regards to some things and in some manners but those are not the same things that women are and are similar for both men...) Similarly women are nurtured to be more cooperative in their decision making. The point here is that the state does not feel the same impetus to poke its nose into the personal matters of two men because they are told to look out for themselves and a power imbalance between two men is not because society told man number two that he is supposed to be submissive to the demands of man number one in the relationship. The state allows such people to live with their choices sans interference because society does not pigeon hole the members of the union into separate roles based upon sex. They are the same sex.
Income production and its relation to the children of the union is also important when looking at differences between the union types.
1. Compared to two men, the woman in a union with a man will have limited work capability while pregnant. This is especially true in dangerous and physically demanding jobs (often high paying) though it will be likewise limited in others. (Case in point: climbing up and down trees doing tree trimming and especially when removing limbs from power lines. Reduced mobility adds danger...)This (is one aspect that) leads to the previously mentioned tendency for men to have a better paying job and for the woman to be the primary caretaker. Thus the tendency for power discrepancy revolving around income.
2. But, when two men adopt a child neither is pregnant. (Duh!) Each can aspire to be equal as a primary caregiver and both have the ability to retain their jobs fully uninterrupted by the pregnancy.
3. The aspect is also different with respect to two women. First, no matter how many men a woman appraises to be her husband, she will be the one carrying the child to term. In a union between two women, a woman can appraise various women until she finds one to carry the child of a third party (if that is the choice) or find one who will be willing to support her while she has a pregnancy from a third party. But, each pregnancy already requires a man and woman and the state has passed laws to hold people financially responsible for the caring of their biological children. The state has no impetus to hold a non-biological parental party responsible when those protections have been deliberately bypassed.
Note regarding 3. Another point to examine regarding third parties is healthcare. When a man biologically fathers a child (and a woman biologically mothers one) healthcare policies will allow that child to be covered even if he is not the custodian. The employer will end up footing half that additional cost. If such benefits are to be extended to children in a union between two men (or two women) then a cost burden will be passed on to another (the employer) outside the union. So, in this case, recognizing the union is not just something that does no harm to those outside the union. It will create a financial burden on the employer.
Summation
The point is that there are differences between the unions. Some of the problems wishing to be addressed in the union between a man and a woman (the tendency for a power discrepancy in favor of the man over the woman because of society's tendencies regarding the two...) are not exhibited in the union between two people of the same sex. Other problems may be exhibited in all the unions. In essence, the set of problems to be addressed in same sex unions is most likely a subset of the set of problems existing in the union between a man and a woman. That would call for recognition as a civil union with limited coverage rather than a full fledge marriage recognition, IMO.
End note: I repeated the term "no impetus" a couple of times. With that term I mean no impetus that climbs to the level of calling for the state to put its nose into the private lives of others.
I'm still of the mind that it's not the place of government to regulate or mandate marriage or the sexual behavior of adults.
Of course I oppose common law marriage laws as they are currently held by the courts, sodomy laws, laws against (adult) prostitution, anti suicide laws, drug regulations, and basically any victimless crime.
I'm still of the mind that it's not the place of government to regulate or mandate marriage or the sexual behavior of adults. Of course I oppose common law marriage laws as they are currently held by the courts, sodomy laws, laws against (adult) prostitution, anti suicide laws, drug regulations, and basically any victimless crime.
Amen, brother. If I were in charge there would be only a few things that were actually illegal: murder, theft, rape, battery, attempted murder.