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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by cmurf »

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…

There's no possible way this can happen. There's zero political will by two branches of government at the federal level, times 50 at the state level. And the Supreme Court can't do it on its own, because it would have to reverse itself on over a dozen cases in 100+ years specifically stating marriage is a right. And the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights considers marriage a right, Article 16.

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

#812

Post by asddubs »

ElComradio wrote: post #695
asddubs wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting concept, that sexual orientation is something we believe is ingrained, but things we find sexually repulsive are fluid and subject to change.

Well I don't think there is such a thing as sexual repulsion.

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

#813

Post by squeaky-clean »

caseysoftware wrote: post #198
balls187 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT: It wasn't anti Semitic remarks that got Michael Richards in trouble. Michael Richards went on a massive tirade saying the N-word repeatedly after he felt that a black patron was being disrespectful.

I think the difference is that many people laughed with and applauded Dave Chappelle at the time while few (if anyone?) applauded Michael Richards. Chappelle was commenting on a widely held belief. Richards, not so much.

Those lines were part of Chapelle's skits, they were clearly a part of a joke. Michael Richard's rants weren't a part of a show or routine, it was just him shouting at a patron. It's not because he made comments about blacks, jews, or any other race. It's because there wasn't any satire to his statements, and they seemed genuine (or it appeared that way at least).

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

#814

Post by rmxt »

api wrote: post #804
rmxt wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The religious arguments made by opponents to this are disingenuous. The Bible and many other traditional religious texts have lots of bad things to say about, say, usury (the charging of interest, or at least excess interest), yet you see nobody protesting outside credit card companies or payday lenders. I don't think I've ever heard a Christian conservative criticize our excessive level of private debt. The Catholic…

Thank you, quite insightful and I agree on all counts. My use of the Bible quote was an attempt to cherry-pick in the same sort of way as the arguments I'm detracting. The selective re-imagining of religious texts to fit the preexisting social and ethical desires of a group of people is probably an issue as old as religion and organized civilization itself.

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

#815

Post by kbenson »

pekk wrote: post #649
eropple wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a reasonable position, but a realistic one only if you believe that the opposition to same-sex marriage is the use of the word "marriage" and not a fear-driven hatred of people with a different use for their plumbing. As it happens, I do not; I am entirely certain that "civil unions" being applied to gay people would call down the exact same rhetoric from the exact same people. (I am further certain that the wh…

I can't agree. The word "marriage" in particular makes people irrationally excited and start thinking about their church's definition of marriage. So politically, it is a line in the sand. "Defense of civil unions act" doesn't have the same ring and wouldn't get Republicans out to the polls the same way. If, in an alternate history, this could have been made a matter of the government meddling in the issue of marriag…

How would removing rights granted by marriage and putting them under a civil union, which is what I took the parent to propose, supposed to not trigger irrational excitement of people who support marriage in it's current incarnation? You can argue that people shouldn't care if they just have to get a civil union in addition to their marriage, but we've already brought irrationality with regards to how marriage is defined into the argument as a behavior that we agree exists, so we can't ignore it now.

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

#816

Post by baddox »

tommorris wrote: post #799
baddox wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why would people have to get "unmarried"?

If you get government out of the marriage business, marriage stops being a legal reality. You therefore get rid of the legal status of people who are married. You take away benefits and legal status from straight people who are already married. No amount of sugar makes "oh, by the way, we don't recognise your marriage anymore" taste any better.

> If you get government out of the marriage business, marriage stops being a legal reality.

Not at all. There are lots of legal realities now that have nothing to do with the current marriage-specific laws, and likewise marriage could exist as a legal reality without the current marriage-specific laws.

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

#818

Post by DanBC »

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.

> Any straight guy will

A small change makes your sentence more truthy: "Many straight guys will".

This isn't just a quibble. Public safety gave up using "gay men" because so many men do not identify as gay but do have sex with men. Thus, MSM is now used instead.

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

#819

Post by ryanSrich »

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…

It has far less todo with what people want than it does with just taking what you can get. If gay couples had to wait around for the government to change the way it handles marriage they might as well just count on never having the option to join each other in a civil union.

Your ideas are great in theory but they don't really fit into the corrupt framework of modern day politics (or even throughout written history).

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

#820

Post by Nadya »

asddubs wrote: post #664
ElComradio wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your reasoning is yours alone and the anecdote can be easily hand-waved away: perhaps you're bisexual or lean more heavily towards homosexuality than most heterosexuals, thus find it less repulsive.

As for not believing in sexual repulsion - is this in regards to gender or in general?

Post reply on HN