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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by dllthomas »

lisper wrote: post #831
prewett wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those who I think you would say "Just Don't Get It." Judging from your rhetoric, you clearly don't understand why some people do not think gay marriage is a good thing for the country. I don't think you have earned the right to say we "Just Don't Get It" and need to be "dope-slapped" until you actually get why we disagree with your viewpoint. If you can coherently argue for my position (even though you dis…

> you clearly don't understand why some people do not think gay marriage is a good thing for the country I've been studying this issue (and writing about it) for twelve years. I doubt very much there is an argument on either side I haven't heard. But this is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether gay marriage is or is not a good thing for the country. (I think it is, but that's irrelevant too.) What matters is if i…

There is clearly such an argument: "marriage is about biological reproduction."

Of course, consistently applied, that should also argue against marriage of straight couples unable to have children (and probably also all the straight couples uninterested in having children). "No marriage after a hysterectomy" is not a position I've encountered.

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

#982

Post by hobarrera »

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…

Indeed. IMHO, I should be able to share with one (or more) people all the rights that marriage currently grants without it somehow being linked to an ancient religious ritual, even if only be name.

Marriage should be handled as religious rituals and nothing state-related at all.

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

#983

Post by Nadya »

asddubs wrote: post #977
Nadya wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think there's sexual repulsion. Either you are repulsed by something or you are not, whether it's sexual has nothing to do with it. And what we are repulsed by is often conditioned And no, I am not bisexual.

So how do you define the word "turnoff"? Or the phrase "mood killer".

There are things that I'm not repulsed by in anything but a sexual context. So I disagree with you on that merit alone.

Also I was referring to the Kinsey Scale. You can be "leaning towards homosexuality" without actually desiring to have sex with the same sex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

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

#984

Post by dllthomas »

baddox wrote: post #733
rodgerd wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect that religious marriage existed long before nation states Do you have any actual evidence? Because here in reality-land, the evidence shows that the English legal tradition considered marriage a civil institution long before the churches tried to claim it.

Well, nation states have only existed for 500 years or so, and marriage is mentioned in the Bible and plenty of Ancient Greek writings. I'm not sure if that counts as evidence here in reality-land.

With so narrow a definition of "nation state", I am left wondering what relevance "religious marriage existed long before nation states" has to the broader discussion.

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

#985

Post by DominikD »

troycarlson wrote: post #3

Hopefully this whole "issue" will just go away soon...so many more important things that deserve the public's attention. Edit: To clarify, I support marriage equality and believe this is great news that deserves celebrating.

It's possible to pay attention to more than one thing at a time. Just because drought in California is much more serious problem than Vibrio vulnificus in the Baltic Sea doesn't mean we should disregard bacterias altogether. Gay rights are not a distraction from Something More Important, it's just one of many issues that have to be taken care of in parallel.

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

#986

Post by [deleted] »

guscost wrote: post #853
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…

IANAL but couldn't you argue that legal marriage is basically a special kind of corporation? One that pays way less taxes, sure, but still. One part that might be different is the special rules for child custody, but there are extramarital legal arrangements for that too.

[deleted]

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

#987

Post by tommorris »

lukifer wrote: post #483
jasonjei wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's shocking to me is that we need permission from the state to marry, whether gay or straight. Why do we need the blessing of the government to marry anyway? We can have kids without permission from the state (so long as you aren't in China), why do we need to ask for permission and "apply for marriage"? In theory, applying for marriage implies the government could deny a marriage, gay or straight. Why do we impl…

One of the most brilliant ideas I've heard on the subject is a couple of proposed constitutional amendments stating that (a) your body is your personal property, and (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family. When framed in that way, even most social conservatives would agree with the underlying principles.

> (b) you have an inalienable right to define who is a member of your family

So if Charles Manson decides you are his wife now, you don't get much of a say in it. Sounds awesome.

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

#988

Post by anonbanker »

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…

Toasting in epic bread.

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

#989

Post by carlob »

giaour wrote: post #694
brownegg wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't upvote this hard enough. OP is right in my mind, but.... I'm straight (and divorced), and we got married for many of the same reasons that LGBT folks want to--it makes sense. Visitation rights, inheritance, tax treatment, etc. It's unlikely that marriage would be removed as something of concern to lawmakers--has that kind of thing ever happened anywhere, any time, any way? I respect OP's opinion, but it's ivo…

France has done so. When you get married there, it has to be performed by a government official (usually someone representing the mayor's office). You can have a big church wedding if you want, but the state doesn't recognize it. Later, France created a very powerful form of non-marriage civil union (the PACS) and saw it become incredibly popular with straight couples.

But still there are differences for example in tax rebates between, married, pacs and none of the above couples.

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

#990

Post by tibiapejagala »

tommorris wrote: post #796
anti-shill wrote: post #35

good...now maybe the so-called "leftists" can put this issue aside and concentrate on issues that matter to more than about 1% of the population...I refer to these really "silly" issues like wages, single-payer healthcare (obamacare is a mess), trade, flooding of the labor supply, the drug war, worker rights and benefits, more time off and vacation, monopolies, regulatory capture, NIMBYized zoning/regs (aka affordabl…

Gay people fighting for their rights doesn't stop anyone else fighting for anything else. Zero-sum fallacy. If you want gay people to stop being all annoying and campaigny, then get people to stop persecuting us all around the world.

Just calling something a fallacy makes you seem smart, but doesn't make you right.

Is media attention infinite? Does your government can discuss infinite number of issues? I don't think so.

Post reply on HN