41–50 of 58 posts
I find this article kind of silly as it pertains to Gay Marriage as a political issue. The politicians who are voting (or in most cases, not voting) on this issue care little and understand less about the data management side of things, and furthermore when has government EVER been efficient? Interesting from a database POV, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 institutio…
It's like the science fiction cliche where humans puzzle over artifacts of ancient alien technology. A mind brought up on modern politics is bound to be often baffled by strange and archaic things seemingly created by nonhuman beings. What's common law? What's religion? What's marriage? Our only framework for understanding is the idea of democracy and human rights, but this stuff predates human rights by hundreds or…
Table: , Column1, Column2
where the denotes the column to be primary key and Column1, Column2 etc. denote regular non-key attributes. The notation ForeignKeyID from SomeTable denotes a foreign key referring to a row in SomeTable.
Persons: , Name, DateOfBirth
Men and Women are defined in separate tables, to enforce integrity constraints later, which is why it is not modeled as a Gender attribute in Persons table. These tables have no attributes, simply a listing of men and women. It is a perfectly valid relation that has only one column, by the way. Note that the foreign key here is also the primary key of the table.
Men:
Women:
This represents a basic marriage, the only attribute of which is the date. Many specific forms of marriage are captured below.
Marraiges: , DateOfMarriage
MarriageID is the primary key for the tables below. The design below permits polygamy, so further integrity constraints would be needed to restrict it. If a marriage is not permitted to be dissolved and no polygamy is permitted, we can place a uniqueness constraint on both Men and Women attributes below. If all types of marriages are permitted in all jurisdictions, these 3 tables below could be unified.
ConventionalMarriages: , PersonID from Men, PersonID from Women
GayMarriages: , PersonID from Men, PersonID from Men
LesbianMarriages: similar to above
Notice how a marriage has to exist for a divorce to exist
Divorces: , DivorceDate
Some features of the model: if a person A & B marry and then they terminate a marriage, and remarry again, it gets a new marriageID.
Some integrity constraints:
a) Zero or One marriage at a time rule:
If a PersonID occurs more than once in the Marriages table, then order the marriages by marriage date, order Divorces by DivorceDate, and enforce the rule:
for all except last MarriageID in Ordered(Marriages), ensure Divorces(MarriageID) exists, and DivorceDate(MarriageID) The nice thing about thinking about the problem relationally is that you focus on the data and its interrelationships, and avoid language considerations. Notice how a fully normalized relational model captures a lot of the constraints automatically, and only the most complex of constraints need to be separately stated.
Finally, note that this is an abstract model and should be separated from details of storage.
I love Sam "sam512" Hughes, the owner of qntm.org. I first ran into his writing on Everything2, the old-but-not-dead collaborative writing site. His science fiction is absolutely exemplary, especially the "Ed Stories" and the "Fine Structure" series. I would suggest that you all check it out, along with some of the other essays on qntm.org.
This kind of problems arise when people decide to change what Nature decided to be a Constant...
at some odd level, your post intrigues me, are you saying that gay relationships being "unnatural" is why design data around it is so tough?
This kind of problems arise when people decide to change what Nature decided to be a Constant...
It seems I need to explain better: Nature decided that so called "gays" (an artificial term, created in our modern times) can't procreate, so if you would make an island for them, good old Nature would answer with extinction... (I think Nature is really discriminating here. Someone should sue It.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 institutio…
It's like the science fiction cliche where humans puzzle over artifacts of ancient alien technology. A mind brought up on modern politics is bound to be often baffled by strange and archaic things seemingly created by nonhuman beings. What's common law? What's religion? What's marriage? Our only framework for understanding is the idea of democracy and human rights, but this stuff predates human rights by hundreds or…
I'm sorry if that isn't broad-minded enough for you, but I can't help but view a modern political issue through the lens of modern politics. Arguing in the abstract strikes me as a convenient way of avoiding the problem entirely.
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…
A marriage is actually two contracts. It is a contract between the spouses, where they agree to grant one another certain rights (inheritance, medical decision power, financial support, etc.) It is also a contract with the two spouses on one side, and the society at large on the other, whereby society agrees to recognize the contract between the couple and treat them as one "unit" for purposes of taxes and such, and the couple agrees to be clear and explicit if they ever terminate the marriage.
The tax breaks are absolutely NOT "just a way to lure the provider into marriage." Generally, the thing that lures the provider is the comfort and security of long-term romantic companionship, and the desire to provide for someone they love.
There is nothing stopping a gay couple from formulating a contract between the two of them, signing it, getting it notarized, and even changing their names. But the other part of that contract, between society and the couple, that is allowed only for hetero couples in most states, and not for gay couples.
This is gender-based discrimination. There's just no other way to look at it. You can make the case that the discrimination is sensible, as some sorts of discrimination indeed are. (I.e., the ageism in prohibiting children from buying firearms.) However, legal discrimination based on gender is a VERY hard thing to justify rationally.
I'm not saying that tax breaks ought to exist or that they ought to be abolished. But, the fact is, they DO exist, and they're not going to be abolished any time soon. The qualification to receive this treatment from the government is that you enter into a specific sort of contract with a spouse. However, gays who enter into this sort of contract do not receive the same treatment by the government; their union is not recognized.
I don't see why he needs to marry.
Well, personally, I don't really see why ANYONE needs to marry, but my own situation has left me understandably cynical ;) The point is that, in my opinion, the law should be gender-blind. If marriages are worth special treatment apart from other sorts of committed relationships—and I think you could make a strong case that they are—then fine. But the gender of the partners should be immaterial in the eyes of the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Marriage is a convenient shorthand for a sort of contract that is useful and common. Like LLC or NDA, it's one of those things that might have little differences from case to case, but in general, it's handy to talk about as one sort of thing. A marriage is actually two contracts. It is a contract between the spouses, where they agree to grant one another certain rights (inheritance, medical decision power, financial…
No, it's actually very easy to justify rationally: for example, sending young men to war lets you replenish the population faster than if you'd sent everyone equally. Nature discriminates on gender, making it useful for us to do the same. It's only hard to justify if you subscribe to a certain system of irrational axioms, one of which says discrimination is generally bad.
You conceptualize marriage as a universally available contract to "legalize" romantic love, unfortunately tainted with gender discrimination by backwards people. I have nothing against this idea, but invent a new word for it, it's not marriage. ("Civil union" would be fine.) I can imagine elephants inventing marriage, but I can't imagine them accepting gay marriage on the same terms as straight. This is the elephant in the room: your concept ignores the both the purpose and the practical workings of marriage all through human history, long before anyone thought of contracts, romance or discrimination.
For example, I have explained how tax breaks for married couples benefit society: they give the provider an extra incentive to get and stay married, thus encouraging good offspring. I have similarly cynical explanations for other aspects of the institution of marriage which are IMO utterly unexplainable from the human rights perspective. Let's focus on the tax breaks. Isaac, by what mechanism do they benefit society in your opinion?
(Necessary disclaimer: this is not an ad against gay marriage. But if your opinion on gay marriage is based on ideology instead of analysis, you're wrong, even if the opinion itself is right. It's like having an incorrect proof of a true theorem.)