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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by aeturnum »

interlocutor wrote: post #734
delecti wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being straight has always been significantly more common, and will continue to be so. You teach them that when they grow up, they can marry someone they love. Which, now, is now true no matter whether you're talking to a kid who happens to be gay or not.

>>> You teach them that when they grow up, they can marry someone they love. That's avoiding the question. Do you, for example, show kids pictures of gay/lesbian couples and straight couples in equal proportion? Or do you show them mostly pictures of straight couples, and gay/lesbian couples only occasionally? Is it bigoted to teach kids that being straight is the "default"?

I think I would avoid describing any social distinction as, "the default," to children. Do you tell them people are poor or rich by default? Happy or sad by default? The whole dilemma is predicated on looking for a world view that fits into simple binaries.

I would tell children what marriage is, as an idea, and when they ask who can get married you can say, "adults, or children with their parent's permission." It seems like you're concerned with fostering bias or bigotry in children. You will, we all will - our children will generally inherit our prejudices and politics. Part of raising children is working to create an environment where they understand how you feel, but also that disagreement is ok and questioning is ok.

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

#752

Post by kstenerud »

interlocutor wrote: post #734
delecti wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being straight has always been significantly more common, and will continue to be so. You teach them that when they grow up, they can marry someone they love. Which, now, is now true no matter whether you're talking to a kid who happens to be gay or not.

>>> You teach them that when they grow up, they can marry someone they love. That's avoiding the question. Do you, for example, show kids pictures of gay/lesbian couples and straight couples in equal proportion? Or do you show them mostly pictures of straight couples, and gay/lesbian couples only occasionally? Is it bigoted to teach kids that being straight is the "default"?

You show them reality. If there's a lot of something, they'll see a lot of it. You can try to distort their education if you want, but they have eyes to see and they're not stupid.

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

#754

Post by Havvy »

jivardo_nucci wrote: post #698
honestcoyote wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered if polyamorus families could make an end run around the old anti-polygamy laws by creating a corporation. It would give legal protection for shared property and money. Would also provide a mechanism for divorce by allowing the remaining people to buy out the shares of the person leaving. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a start. I'm personally not poly in any way, but it's a fun thought expe…

In the midst of reading this I was struck by the question "If corporations are persons, can corporations marry?"

It's called a merger.

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

#755

Post by yeahdude »

kstenerud wrote: post #746
vectorpush wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have any moral objections to poly-marriage, but I don't think it's the same thing as gay marriage. Prohibition of gay marriage is rooted in the identity of individuals , but prohibition of polygamy is based on the amount of participants in the union. No one is discriminated against in the face of poly-marraige prohibition because it has nothing to do with the traits of any individual.

Sure it does: The trait of whom you choose as a partner. The trait of the structure of your union. The difference between the number of participants vs the gender distribution of the participants is academic.

Not when you consider the legal ramifications.

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

#756

Post by krapp »

giaour wrote: post #342
krapp wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robosexuality.

What happens between me and my roomba is none of the government's business.

I was thinking about a consensual relationship between a human and a strong humanoid AI.

That's just gross.

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

#757

Post by _ls7m »

rmxt wrote: post #662
_ls7m wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said that whatever your sexual compulsion is, no one else has a right to tell you that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate to open and you don't get to close it after gay "marriage" is approved - others will want the freedom as well.

It's not a red herring because you already have people on HN, and I'm sure many many other places, asking when polygamy will get to share in the same "civil rights".

And to play devil's advocate (and that language is intentional) who are you to say that a child or an animal can't consent to a sexual relationship or marriage with another child or an adult? How closed-minded of you.

We are already giving children under 18 the right to access birth control (without their parent's consent) and the freedom to decide that they are not the gender that they were "assigned" - so why can't they decide who to "love"? And who are you to say an animal doesn't have the same rights, feelings, and ability to give consent as a human? I think PETA and many others would actively disagree.

If you pay attention, I haven't mentioned religion. What I've mentioned is the reasoning and appeal you gave for allowing what is "natural". Who decides what is "natural" and acceptable for human beings? The animal kingdom? You personally? These are not troll questions, these are important questions and it matters gravely how we answer them.

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

#758

Post by _ls7m »

serve_yay wrote: post #660
_ls7m wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think that questions almost answers itself I think you should ask a better question.

I've asked some "better" questions above. Feel free to answer them.

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

#759

Post by threatofrain »

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…

Why should the government stop addressing marriage, which is a cross-cultural structure involving people officially declaring their relationship to a community, sometimes via a legal vehicle? Marriage has been independently constructed by many peoples with many variations. Often times we talk about Christian marriage but not Chinese or Greek marriage.

Why do you frame marriage as principally religious, and something the government should keep out of?

There's one way in which governments have screwed up, including state governments, and that's allowing priests to have legal authority. The wedding industry is a revenue stream. In what other way does religion have relation to marriage? Through the laws of Moses, transferred from God?

The government shouldn't be afraid of words. The government should feel free to not trespass upon religion by creating as many alternative marriages as it wants. The government can create a "high-fecundity during wartime" category of marriage if it wants, and grant extra tax benefits. That's a matter of secular policy.

"I really suggest the A41 form for marriage for your case in particular. My cousin and his girlfriend got married under A41 and they've structured their finances like so and so."

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

#760

Post by kstenerud »

dataker wrote: post #365

Beyond YAY!'s, the state is saying it will 'let' you love someone of the same sex. Can someone sense the creepiness in this? It tells you how/who/why you should love. It still doesn't include certain groups and it could revoke such 'rights' in other circumstances.

It doesn't tell you how/who/why you should love. It simply states the kinds of unions that gain property sharing rights.

You're free to love who/how/why you want, but don't expect special property rights or tax credits unless the government has recognized them as such.

Post reply on HN