[JoeAltmaier]

That rant is so tired, so inconsistent, so laced with hate-speech, its become wearisome to respond to its ilk. Let me just say, lots of older couples, infertile couples, 'normal' couples get married never intending to have children, even in your own religion, that that fundamental argument is silly.

Why do you keep making it? You come off sounding desperate, defensive, selfish. You make sex sound mechanical, impersonal. I cannot imagine what kind of marriage you are describing, but it is not a marriage of joy and commitment.

[mercurial]

No need to feed the troll.

[JoeAltmaier]

Sorry.

[ukoto]

laced with hate-speech

This is like the made up term "homophobia". Just because I disagree with you and use my free speech to do so, does not give you the right to assume my opinions are coming from negative attributes. On the contrary, I care deeply about the future for my children.

lots of older couples, infertile couples, 'normal' couples get married

And they certainly can get married and consummate. It's unfortunate they won't be able to have children but perhaps they can adopt. I do not think same-sex couples should adopt, because this kind of terrible things happen[1].

Why do you keep making it?

This is the first time I've posted about gay marriage on HN.

I cannot imagine what kind of marriage you are describing, but it is not a marriage of joy and commitment.

Any parent will tell you: children are the greatest joy and a huge commitment. That is exactly what I'm describing.

[1] http://rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/

[laumars]

>* Just because I disagree with you and use my free speech to do so, does not give you the right to assume my opinions are coming from negative attributes.*

Free speech is a responsibility - not a right to say dumb things just because you can.

[whiddershins]

Actually, yes, free speech includes the right to say dumb things just because you can. The responsibility is entirely optional. Otherwise it wouldn't be free speech. It would be called "responsible speech."

[laumars]

> Actually, yes, free speech includes the right to say dumb things just because you can. The responsibility is entirely optional. Otherwise it wouldn't be free speech. It would be called "responsible speech."

Actually no. There's defamation laws and such like that trump free speech.

People need to learn that free speech isn't an excuse for trolls and bigots to post unfounded and hateful remarks. "Free speech" doesn't mean "free pass to act like a dick and intentionally piss of whole subsections of society". Which is why I refer to it as a responsibility; as with all great power comes great responsibility.

[whiddershins]

No, defamation laws "and such" are extremely limited in scope, for a reason. None of them stops people from "saying dumb things." It specifically DOES allow, protect, end entitle someone to "act like a dick and intentionally piss off whole subsections of society." There could be no discourse otherwise.

You may be confusing United States law with many European nations, which have very different interpretations of speech rights. For example, in Germany it is illegal to advocate for NeoNazism. In the United States, it is perfectly legal, even though it fits all of your "disallowed" criteria.

[laumars]

> No, defamation laws "and such" are extremely limited in scope, for a reason. None of them stops people from "saying dumb things." It specifically DOES allow, protect, end entitle someone to "act like a dick and intentionally piss off whole subsections of society." There could be no discourse otherwise.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. If I was to make up some rubbish about you (eg selling drugs to school kids), then you'd be able to take me to court over those things that I said. Thus there are limitations on freedom of speech as those laws are there to protect people like you from in situations like the aforementioned. They're not there to protect people from /SAYING/ dumb things - like you stated. The laws are there to protect the subject /AGAINST/ dumb things being said.

However that's a tangent as it was never my original point. As I'll explain next:

> You may be confusing United States law with many European nations, which have very different interpretations of speech rights. For example, in Germany it is illegal to advocate for NeoNazism. In the United States, it is perfectly legal, even though it fits all of your "disallowed" criteria.

I'm not confusing any laws here. You're misunderstanding me as you're talking purely from a legal perspective where as I'm talking about social obligation. A rather crude example would be gun laws in the US. A large number of people are calling for guns to be banned because a small minority chose to abuse their right to own a gun. Sure, they broke other laws (just as people who abuse their free speech might break defamation (et al) laws). And just like with free speech, we have a moral obligation not to dilute our freedom of speech with mindless hatred as otherwise we might see such rights taken away "for our own benefit". In fact we are seeing this already with idiots who post dumb comments on Twitter getting arrested. They set a precedence where the police can intervene, which makes it easier for police and "do gooders" to take action in future times when circumstances might not be so extreme. And we've seen it with the pressure that Facebook face to sensor the messages left on there because of a meme going out of hand.

Sometimes having freedoms is as much about knowing when not to abuse it as it is about knowing when to exercise your freedoms. Which is why I say great power comes great responsibility. Just because someone legally can do something, it doesn't mean that they should.