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

Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#661

Post by rayiner »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #451

Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…

I find that argument ironic. Whatever religious connotations it may or may not have, marriage is a legal construct. It's an arrangement created to deal with a whole host of practical legal problems: inheritance, property rights, etc. Even before modern government, when organized religion administered marriage, it was a function of the legal side of religion.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#662

Post by rmxt »

_ls7m wrote: post #637
rmxt wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "social insanity" is it to recognize and legalize a completely natural phenomenon? Or are you going to tell me that all those ducks and bonobos are sinners too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals And, if you're a fan of beating people over the head with that book that tells you to primarily love others (e.g. turn the other cheek, see the beam in your own eye, etc.), here's a good money…

Should we legalize and support through marriage all naturally occurring sexual desires and acts? I think that questions almost answers itself, but you never know after a ruling like this.

That's a red herring, almost concern troll-esque, argument. This ruling isn't a slippery slope towards moral depravity and chaos, no matter how much religious authorities will attempt to paint it as such. We can definitely know that civilization as we know it will not collapse because two guys/girls are allowed to kiss, hold hands once in a while, and receive acknowledgment from civil authorities that they share tax returns.

An important distinction between gay marriage and other human taboos that I'm guessing you're referring to (pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.) is the presence of mutual consent and respect. The ability to consent derives from the uniquely (adult) human ability to reason about the future and one's self-existence to an unusually sophisticated level. Children lack the experience necessary to reason about such things, hence why pedophilia is such a long-standing and widespread taboo.

If two fully consenting adults want to do something that celebrates their shared bond between each other, who or what is anyone else to tell them they shouldn't do that?

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#663

Post by eli_gottlieb »

masklinn wrote: post #113
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world. What fraction of the developed world had gay marriage, at what time, such that this statement makes sense? I mean, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in, what, 2003?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Timeline 2001 — Netherlands 2001 — Belgium 2005 — Spain, Canada 2006 — South Africa 2009 — Norway, Sweden 2010 — Portugal, Iceland, Argentina 2012 — Denmark 2013 — France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand 2014 — England and Wales 2015 — Luxembourg, Ireland, United States of America 2017 — Finland (the law is voted and signed but not yet in effect) > I mean, Massachusetts le…

>subdivision-level

Coming from a European, I think that's a bit of unnecessary quibbling intended to justify condescending to the Americans. The United States started out as something like the European Union: a partial union of sovereign countries. As such, the appropriate comparison would be to ask: where's the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights declaring that all EU members must implement gay marriage, or else? Get with the times, you backwards-looking conservatives on the Old Continent!

And, to this day, the separate regions, which are admittedly larger than states, actually do behave somewhat like different countries. The differences become especially visible when you look at public policies and development indices: different states in the USA have various levels of honesty in government, civil rights, economic development, average education, etc. In fact, on a state-by-state basis, some US states are more highly developed than many/most European countries.

So: Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#664

Post by asddubs »

ElComradio wrote: post #468
baakss wrote: post #30

In my lifetime, I think this is the social issue that has seen the most positive change. As a kid, gay people were practically lepers. Eleven Years ago, Dave Chappelle just outright said "gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is", and it was considered funny and acceptable. (Not harping on him specifically, just pointing out what it was like in 2004) Seven years ago prop 8 passed, if barely with some caveats about lac…

Any straight guy will, if given the choice, avoid scenes of man on man sex as much as possible. They might say it's "just not my thing" out of politeness or tact but watch what they do. When Chapelle said it it was funny because everyone watching can relate and it's a tension reliever to hear what you've been bottling up is actually true. Much comedy works this way.

I dunno, I'm a straight guy and it doesn't bother me. It used to but one day I realized it was just socially instilled gay panic.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#665

Post by sliverstorm »

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #497
seszett wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anyone really believe this right was in the Constitution for 250 years, only to be discovered recently? That seems to be the case to me. I'm not completely familiar with US history, but don't you think the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people was already written in the constitution 250 years ago, for example? Or women's suffrage. It just took a while to actually recognize it. Homosexu…

I'm not disagreeing with your general premise that the fundamental right for equality is the basis of the constitution and therefore equal marriage is implied by it. But to your points: "the right of black people to be free and equal to the other people" (specifically the abolishment of slavery) Is made explicit in the 13th amendment[0] And "women's suffrage" is the 19th amendment[1] So for both of your examples, the…

Making something explicit makes it clear for everyone, but you could easily argue the rights of black people and women were written into the Constitution from the start- just in less obvious ways.

That's one of the court's jobs, after all, to evaluate complex or difficult situations and laws where it is not immediately clear what the law says. It reminds me of especially tortured and opaque code. You can't see on the surface that foo=bar, but after a long and arduous process of evaluation you discover- lo and behold- foo=bar all along. Or even more difficult, you discover that foo=1 implies bar=2.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#666

Post by pacala »

tommorris wrote: post #615
ctdonath wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state has a vested interest in procreation (i.e.: creation of new citizens & taxpayers as others die off), so takes an interest in "marriage" as a means for facilitating the most efficient & effective means of promoting procreation, doing so by giving special benefits in return for parents taking on special obligations. Expanding the beneficiaries of those benefits to those to whom there is absolutely no chance (…

> The state has a vested interest in procreation (i.e.: creation of new citizens & taxpayers as others die off), so takes an interest in "marriage" as a means for facilitating the most efficient & effective means of promoting procreation, doing so by giving special benefits in return for parents taking on special obligations. Expanding the beneficiaries of those benefits to those to whom there is absolutely no chance…

> So, you think marriage shouldn't be available for straight people who are both infertile?

The rest of your argument around mutual care is reasonable. There are more nuanced views than a blunt "if state support for marriage depends on procreation, let's ban marriage for infertile people as well.", which sounds like spite: if I can't get it, then those guys over there should not get it either because they are similar to me on dimension X.

From the perspective of the state, there is a man, there is a woman, statistically they have a high probability of having and rearing children. Splitting hairs whether they are fertile / infertile is something the state shouldn't get into, partly because it's administrative hell and partly because it's an invasion of privacy.

With gay marriage, there is a man, there is a man, statistically they have close to zero probability of having children, so from the perspective of perpetuating the state, there is no statistically significant benefit in offering them special treatment.

We can now argue whether the state has the right to determine the gender of an individual, or whether that's an invasion of privacy as well. It's pretty easy to tell a man from a woman at birth. Biology and cultural norms make this distinction pretty obvious to anyone who's paying attention. It's both cheap and reasonable to tell apart men from women.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#667

Post by rodgerd »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #451

Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…

> government probably never should have messed with marriage, at least not as the cultural/religious thing that it is.

Marriage is not and was never a religious "thing" in the English legal tradition.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#668

Post by justforthis123 »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #451

Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…

I don't know if others felt it but my main feeling was that of anger. After watching the great joy and thankfulness (why should they being thankful!) from the LGBT community the only thought I could have was - How are we letting this situation to exist where elected and non-elected groups of people can decide to restrict or 'grant' joy to such a vast set of humanity.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#669

Post by eli_gottlieb »

macspoofing wrote: post #261
ManFromUranus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no question that this is the case. This video a guy articulates this, be warned I suspect that his conservative opinions and religiousness may rub some HN users the wrong way. However I think his point is persuasive and well made nevertheless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs1K7Gi9Pg

The question is, is that so bad?

The graph-theoretic algorithms necessary to puzzle out polyamorous marriage contracts are going to be somewhat irritating to explain to the legal folks...

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules

#670

Post by MisterBastahrd »

ctdonath wrote: post #580
curiousgeorgio wrote: post #451

Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…

The state has a vested interest in procreation (i.e.: creation of new citizens & taxpayers as others die off), so takes an interest in "marriage" as a means for facilitating the most efficient & effective means of promoting procreation, doing so by giving special benefits in return for parents taking on special obligations. Expanding the beneficiaries of those benefits to those to whom there is absolutely no chance (…

The state has a vested interest in the prevalence of emotionally and financially stable, productive citizens. Anything more than that is emotionally charged fluff.
Post reply on HN