Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

qntm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#21

Post by cousin_it »

Sujan wrote: post #14
axod wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It's just a political rant disguised as a database article. "They do not grasp that men and women are interchangeable" - sure, because men can give birth too. Right?

marriage isn't about giving birth.

Whoa there. Marriage is not so much a right as a societal mechanism with many purposes.

For the female: make sure the provider doesn't run away.

For the male: monogamy gives non-alpha males a chance of having offspring.

For the child: life support.

For government: bind people into clumsy units that you can tax, threaten etc. at will.

For ethnic and religious groups: arranged marriage is a way around natural selection, letting you enforce "proper" genetics and upbringing of the next generation.

When people start talking about gay marriage, all of this gets instantly forgotten.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#22

Post by silentbicycle »

kirse wrote: post #2

Is this how were going to sneak useless articles onto the front page now? Take completely-unrelated-to-Hacking topic X and apply secondary "Engineering/Hacker opinion" Y to it? "Well, condition Y now makes this Hacker-related, let's submit it!"

It's a pretty good article about how assumptions manifest in database schemas, sometimes unintentionally, and these can lead to major maintenance problems down the line.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#23

Post by syntax-case »

silentbicycle wrote: post #20
Sujan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this a minus or just a way to seperate these two things like in a headline or title? (sorry, not a native speaker. these little things sometimes irritate me)

As a native speaker, I'm pretty sure it's a separator. Reading it as "web programming: the gay perspective" may help. I'm disregarding the content of their point, but that's the form.

I bet if some famous gay hacker (you know who you are) wrote a book with this title, it would sell.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#24

Post by pavel_lishin »

yters wrote: post #10

What a speciest. Or rather, what a sentiencetist. Sure, marrying myself is a tax scam, but marrying my rock isn't. My rock needs regular polishing, and why should sentient beings get all the rights? They just happen to have a more complex AI algorithm than my rock does, and that's not its fault. He should get rid of the 'human' heading altogether and just have 'thing.' Plus, things aren't static, they are composed of…

It would make sense to me that every cell in your body is in a polygamist marriage, which is you, which can in turn marry other things.

But does that mean that your liver cell is married to your partner's brain cell? Not at all.

What this means is that marriages are potential partners as well! Model that.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#25

Post by Sujan »

silentbicycle wrote: post #20
Sujan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this a minus or just a way to seperate these two things like in a headline or title? (sorry, not a native speaker. these little things sometimes irritate me)

As a native speaker, I'm pretty sure it's a separator. Reading it as "web programming: the gay perspective" may help. I'm disregarding the content of their point, but that's the form.

thank you.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#26

Post by IsaacSchlueter »

cousin_it wrote: post #21
Sujan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

marriage isn't about giving birth.

Whoa there. Marriage is not so much a right as a societal mechanism with many purposes. For the female: make sure the provider doesn't run away. For the male: monogamy gives non-alpha males a chance of having offspring. For the child: life support. For government: bind people into clumsy units that you can tax, threaten etc. at will. For ethnic and religious groups: arranged marriage is a way around natural selection…

When people start talking about gay marriage, all of this gets instantly forgotten.

What a strange sentiment.

You know, I and my wife aren't together romantically, don't live together, don't share money, and don't have any offspring. Since we're amicably separated, and that amicability is protected by a post-nuptial agreement, and we have no intention of marrying anyone else, we haven't seen the point of going through a divorce.

A friend of mine has lived with his partner for 15 years. They're happy, share money, live together, and love each other in a very romantic way. I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted a kid.

So, who's REALLY destroying the so-called "institution of marriage"?

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#27

Post by huherto »

kirse wrote: post #2

Is this how were going to sneak useless articles onto the front page now? Take completely-unrelated-to-Hacking topic X and apply secondary "Engineering/Hacker opinion" Y to it? "Well, condition Y now makes this Hacker-related, let's submit it!"

It was very interesting to me. Our start up is a dating site an I did not allow gay couples. It is not a moral thing, it just seemed that it made the database design very complicated. The article describes several approaches that may be useful to me.

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#28

Post by cousin_it »

IsaacSchlueter wrote: post #26
cousin_it wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa there. Marriage is not so much a right as a societal mechanism with many purposes. For the female: make sure the provider doesn't run away. For the male: monogamy gives non-alpha males a chance of having offspring. For the child: life support. For government: bind people into clumsy units that you can tax, threaten etc. at will. For ethnic and religious groups: arranged marriage is a way around natural selection…

When people start talking about gay marriage, all of this gets instantly forgotten. What a strange sentiment. You know, I and my wife aren't together romantically, don't live together, don't share money, and don't have any offspring. Since we're amicably separated, and that amicability is protected by a post-nuptial agreement, and we have no intention of marrying anyone else, we haven't seen the point of going throug…

I'm not against gay marriage, but after pattern-matching the particular story of your friend I don't see why he needs to marry. It's like getting a government-sponsored car that you don't want to drive.

Is it for the tax breaks? Think of it like this: they're a way to lure the provider into marriage. If you don't buy the traditional view of marriage, you'll have a hard time justifying tax breaks. I don't believe you can build a logical line of argument from romantic love to tax breaks :-)

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#29

Post by kajecounterhack »

huherto wrote: post #27
kirse wrote: post #2

Is this how were going to sneak useless articles onto the front page now? Take completely-unrelated-to-Hacking topic X and apply secondary "Engineering/Hacker opinion" Y to it? "Well, condition Y now makes this Hacker-related, let's submit it!"

It was very interesting to me. Our start up is a dating site an I did not allow gay couples. It is not a moral thing, it just seemed that it made the database design very complicated. The article describes several approaches that may be useful to me.

Hey just a heads up: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/11/eharmony-...

Re: Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

#30

Post by GHFigs »

cousin_it wrote: post #28
IsaacSchlueter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people start talking about gay marriage, all of this gets instantly forgotten. What a strange sentiment. You know, I and my wife aren't together romantically, don't live together, don't share money, and don't have any offspring. Since we're amicably separated, and that amicability is protected by a post-nuptial agreement, and we have no intention of marrying anyone else, we haven't seen the point of going throug…

I'm not against gay marriage, but after pattern-matching the particular story of your friend I don't see why he needs to marry. It's like getting a government-sponsored car that you don't want to drive. Is it for the tax breaks? Think of it like this: they're a way to lure the provider into marriage. If you don't buy the traditional view of marriage, you'll have a hard time justifying tax breaks. I don't believe you…

The argument is that a certain class of people ought to have the same rights as all others do unless there is a just reason to deny those rights. Surely you can think up an argument to support that notion. The exercise of those rights isn't important, i.e. I should not be denied the right to a fair trial simply because I don't intend to commit any crimes and thus don't "need" the right.

Moreover, while the institution of marriage may serve a societal purpose, the denial of marriage rights is itself a mechanism of social control independent of that purpose. Hence, "gay marriage" is the subject of debate, while "marriage" is not.

Post reply on HN