Pitchfork is pretty hip-to-be-squarish, isn't it?

what? no. fail.

socially conservative, fiscally conservative, blue-collar, family-oriented, traditional, pro-life. this is the new hip. embrace it

Maybe it's just ironic hip-to-be-square.

But isn't all hip-to-be-squareness essentially ironic?

I'd rather be square.

not surprised.

being hip isn't easy, otherwise everyone would choose it.

Hope you don't mind me calling you hipster, then, hipster being so fucking hip.

sure. i've earned my stripes

Bringing it back, y'all.

oh.my.god.you.people.



everyone should be allowed to do wtf they want and that includes getting married. if you wanna, great, if not, great, who cares, whatever, dont sit here and hate on people who do.

TOLERANCE.
it goes both ways guys.

As with many such debates, the issue of confrontation lies within confusion over the meaning of "marriage." I believe notyourfiend was criticizing the genealogy of marriage as a socio-economic institution, as per her typical Foucauldian vantage.

However, in rebuttal, marriage should not be solely defined by its social and legal expression. To interpret girlgun, marriage is legitimized by being a practice that precedes social norms and legal privileges. In essence, a couple joined in marriage are so in virtue of being joined above all else. To them, marriage as an institution is secondary.

LOLLLLOOLO NEG REP ROFL XD


sheesh.

From my side of the ocean it appears to me that notyrfiend is more against the formal 'procedure' and therefore rocognised ecconomic benefits/restrictions/allowances that come with being married, because it is descriminatory and not something which is available to ALL types of couples.. rather than being against the idea of people who choose to make a life commitment to someone...



just sayin.

no but that is the point, it isn't available to all couple's who would like to partake in it, and so it is and can be extremely descriminatory legally financially etc..

yes and i agree with this. it's people getting all radical about it that i can't deal with.

gays should be able to get married with the same benefits as straight people. or perhaps the whole system should be done away with and marriage should be about love.

When I was getting government benefits as a student a couple of years ago, I had to fill out a few forms regarding my financial status, living arangements, etc.

One section basically read:

"Do you live with(spend more than 3 days a week) someone of the opposite sex? If yes, what is their yearly income? "


It didn't matter HOW MANY women/same sex people I might be living with, and what they were earning. To the govt, those details are irrelevant. Yet I am judged on the assumption that I may be in a supportive relationship with someone just because they are of the opposite sex. Because same sex relationships aren't legally recognised, they DONT MATTER.

It is ridiculous.

in what way?

it's rude and often intolerant shitspewing

like i said, it goes both ways.




this is like talking about abortion.

I don't care if people want to get married/not. I do care how unfair it is that some people who wish to, cannot. They are different discussions. imho.

lol abortion.