[eeky]

Like the majority of people, I oppose gay marriage. But what the British government did with chemical castration to Alan Turing and others is absolutely reprehensible - and they should pardon all of them. Let's not conflate these issues please.

[lysol]

No, let's. If homosexuals should be allowed to experience their sexuality than why not permit them to fulfill their emotional, romantic, and other needs? It's such an artificial line to draw and we certainly can discuss both gay marriage and the legality of homosexuality in the same discussion.

[eeky]

The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families. There's nothing that stops homosexuals from fulfilling their emotional, romantic, and other needs. But when you involved tax deductions because children are such an expensive commitment, it gets hairy. I do support civil unions (but not gay adoption), and I am tolerant of gays (I discuss these issues with friends who are gay), but to change the very definition of marriage goes too far - and ends up confusing everyone.

[dragonwriter]

> The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families.

The current legalities around marriage are mostly based directly on the idea that a marriage is a special bilateral promise of mutual support, and not much on other features of "traditional" families.

They've also changed a lot over the two centuries to remove most of the vestigious of the older model of the wife being legally subordinate to the husband. Marriage legalities, and the underlying model of the relationship in marriage on which they are based, aren't the product of some long-static "traditional" model that had been undisturbed for an extended period of time before the same-sex marriage debate.

> There's nothing that stops homosexuals from fulfilling their emotional, romantic, and other needs.

Actually, not having access to the legal rights involved in marriage does prevent that.

> But when you involved tax deductions because children are such an expensive commitment, it gets hairy.

The tax deductions on that premise require you to have children that you are responsible, they aren't an automatic consequence of marriage. So I don't see how they are relevant. The situation in which marriage has tax benefits is if, as part of a couple's arrangement of mutual support, one focuses more on work outside of the house (which is taxable) supported by the other taking on a heavier load of the domestic duties, since married couples pay lower taxes than two individuals when there is a significant disparity of income.

So I'm not sure how your statement above has anything to do with marriage. It seems to have something to do with not wanting people to get tax deductions or credits that come with raising children without actually raising children, which is sensible but completely irrelevant.

> I do support civil unions

Given your statement above about the "legality of marriage" and that "civil unions" as opposed to "domestic partnership" is usually the term given for providing the legalities of marriage under a different name, why?

> (but not gay adoption)

Why? Is it that you prefer children to have less chance of having permanent families and spend more time in foster homes? Or just because you dislike homosexuals?

> and I am tolerant of gays (I discuss these issues with friends who are gay)

And I'm sure they appreciate your magnanimity in deigning to discuss with them the reasons why you think they should receive unequal treatment under the law.

> but to change the very definition of marriage goes too far - and ends up confusing everyone.

"The very definition of marriage" has been pretty much continuously changing throughout all of history. Its not all that confusing, and, to the extent it is, your desire to avoid dealing with the confusion of changing social institutions isn't a reason other people ought to suffer discrimination.

[thejsjunky]

> The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families.

This premise is debatable, but assuming it is true it's still not a particularly strong argument. The law was designed to be flexible and evolve with society's needs and desires.

Allowing gay marriage is a minor adjustment of what we in the US currently understand marriage to be - not a "changing of the very definition". If we were talking about polygamy that would be a much stronger case.

Society encourages and allows marriages for a variety of reasons - involving tradition, encouraging general stability, families, etc. It also has a certain understanding of marriage - a partnership between two people. Homosexual marriage vis a vis heterosexual marriage is the same in all these respects in practical terms.

To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce (in general)...but there are differences in how heterosexual marriages reproduce too. The supposed fundamental "differences" in gay couples are already tolerated (or entirely unproblematic) in the hetero population so banning gay marriages as a means to discourage them is not a valid argument. It's an artificial distinction.

Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics. Hey, that's fine - we're all entitled to our beliefs ...but let's be explicit and honest about it instead of kidding ourselves and each other.

If you really do want to stick to this farce, then at least be consistent and start demanding people must pass fertility and mental health exams before they can be married - to prove that they can produce children and raise them in a healthy environment.

[eeky]

You arguments are good but not airtight. I'll pick out the ones I disagree with.

> To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

>Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics.

I agree that most people oppose gay marriage because of religion, but religion may have underlying logical reasoning for it. I don't think ignorance/personal aesthetics is a reason, because if someone is intuitively disgusted by two males sodomizing, there may be a biological reason for it. Ignorance is better than false beliefs.

The reason I'm against gay marriage is that I don't want the definition to change, and I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them. That's it. These are good reasons in my opinion.

[dragonwriter]

> Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

Not really one relevant to much of the legality around marriage. About the only thing it even remotely connects to is the presumption of paternity (the default assignment of legal parental responsibility to the spouse of the biological mother of any child born during the marriage.) And, even then, its not really a problem. There are two different forms of the presumption, and which is adopted varies by jursidiction.

Rebuttable: In this model, the concept of rights and responsibility of biological parents as preeminent is maintained, but the spouse is presumptively assigned parental rights and responsibility, but this can be reversed if there is evidence that the spouse is not the parent. Obviously, in the case of same sex marriage, this is resolved simply, as the evidence is readily available to rebut the presumption in all cases.

Conclusive: This model is based on the priority of the marital relationship over biological parenthood for raising children, and in jurisdictions adopting this this model the spouse of the biological mother is conclusively assigned parental rights and responsibility with regard to any children born during the marriage. Obviously, there works just fine in same-sex marriage.

So, the same-sex-couples cannot reproduce with their spouse thing is a difference, but not one which seems especially problematic with regard to the legalities around marraige.

> The reason I'm against gay marriage is that I don't want the definition to change

That's not much of a reason.

Why do you think the current definition of marriage, the result of continuous change over an extended period of time, is so perfect that it should not continue to change?

> and I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them.

What does that have to do with equal marriage one way or the other? You think that continuing to deny equal marriage is going to make gay rights advocates less vocal and omnipresent?

[thejsjunky]

> Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

You're just stating explicitly the implicit argument I was refuting, but ok:

The difference is immaterial for our purposes. The fact that one or both parents in a family do not have a biological link to their children is irrelevant. It's a curiosity of genetics that has little-to-nothing to do with how a family functions on a social level, which is the level marriage laws operate on.

Are we banning adoptions and step-children now? Society has no reason to outlaw couples that can't reproduce together. Homosexuals can adopt, they can use surrogates, they can have children from previous marriages (ended in divorce, or death, etc). As long as we're think-of-the-children-ing it would be better all around to let those children grow up in families if possible.

More importantly, that's not a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples - it's a difference between couples. Many straight people can not or will not reproduce with their spouse either - are we going to ban marriages between infertile people? Force people to have children?

The point is this: if you pick at random a married gay couple...and then pick at random a married straight couple....the difference between them will be no greater than the difference that we already tolerate between heterosexual couples. Therefore, you cannot argue that we must ban gay marriage on the basis of preventing some problematic aspect of gay marriage - any "problem" gay marriage is one heterosexual marriage also has. It's a largely artificial distinction. If not being able to have children together is SUCH a big deal, then argue against that and let gay couples be banned under that banner.

If you're going to ban it on the basis that a gay couple is statistically much more likely to have quality X, then quality X must be a VERY serious thing. Infertility is not serious enough to qualify.

Note too this situation may change. The science of reproduction is ever evolving and changing.

> These are good reasons in my opinion.

> is that I don't want the definition to change

This is either silly and arbitrary, or begging the question.

You don't want it to change why? Because you believe laws should never change? You're afraid of all the paper we'll waste printing out new forms? You don't want to have to memorize new legislation?

No, let's be honest - you don't want it to change because you don't agree with the proposed change. That's fine...but just state that instead of coming up with some silly dodge like "I don't want the definition to change".

> I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them

Here I suspect is your most honest; you are against it because you don't like homosexuality. Fine, that's your right to feel that way. However you should just be honest with yourself and others and admit that, instead of providing silly and flimsy rationalizations which fall apart under any scrutiny.

[mynameismonkey]

In your previous comment, you took the view that your sentiments reflected a global representation, and you short-changed the person who replied to you for being so silly as to think you were talking about the USA when in fact you were talking about the entire planet. Now, in this thread, you hearken to "traditional families". You speak of a country that has "tax deductions". May I ask you to hone your platform and let us know from what level of generality you wish us to perceive your commentary?

[jackmaney]

You do realize that if the definition of marriage had never changed, then interracial marriages would still be illegal, right?

[dragonwriter]

If the definition of marriage had never changed from biblical times, polygamy would still be legal.

If the definition of marriage had never changed from the 19th century, married women owning separate property wouldn't be legal.

If the definition of marriage hadn't changed from what is one in any particular time and place in the past leading up to modern marriage laws, either much broader or much narrower restrictions on consanguinity would exist.

Marriage laws change all the time, and understanding of the relationships underlying marriage on which those laws are based also change all the time. Sure, same-sex marriage is a change -- but lots of other things that we consider fairly firmly entrenched in our idea of marriages were themselves changes, some fairly recent, to pre-existing models of marriage. The whole idea that there is some single "traditional" model of marriage that has been static for an extended period of time and which is now threatened by same-sex marriage is ludicrous.

[tome]

To be fair, that's a rather US-centric viewpoint. Interracial marriage was not ever (as far as I am aware; I may be wrong) forbidden in the UK, for example.

[bcgraham]

Your stated reason for opposing gay marriage is that it involves tax deductions because children are an expensive commitment. Then, in the very next sentence, you say you don't support gay adoption. So you oppose gay marriage because they can't have the kids you want to keep from them?

Let me guess: You don't support gay adoption because gay parents can't afford it, what with not having marriage-related tax breaks?

[corin_]

Child-based tax deductions should be based on what children a couple have, not on what gender the couple are.

And why do you oppose gay adoption? That's nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage, or tax issues...

[jlgreco]

> Child-based tax deductions should be based on what children a couple have, not on what gender the couple are.

Should... and are. You can receive child-based tax deductions even if you are not married at all. Whenever I hear the "deductions are for the children" thing brought up I take it as a clear sign that the person saying it has very limited life experience.

[EllaMentry]

Very, very few things get my blood boiling....

It is people like you who I make it my mission to fight against every single day.

It is people like you who feel so insecure that you have to force your ill-conceived morality on everyone.

It is people like you who completely misunderstand psychology, sociology and biology and insist upon strict gender binary. Which you then think justifies your one man one women bullshit.

It is people like you who would prevent me from marrying my beautiful girlfriend - thankfully I like in a more developed, forward thinking country.

It is people like you who would prevent me and my girlfriend from adopting children, despite the fact our household income is 4 times the national average and both of use would be loving stable parents with plenty of time off to take care of our children. Thankfully we like in a more developed country.

It is people like you that are the reason that I and several other people refuse to accept promotions or jobs that would require relocation to backwater countries like the USA.

It is people like you who one day history will see as pathetic and backwards.

Let me be absolutely clear on this. I hate you. I will never forgive you for what you have said and done. And I will do everything in my power to ensure you and people like you can never force your bullshit beliefs on me or anybody else. There have been too many murders, assaults, suicides and lost childhoods because of people like you.

The human race doesn't want you or need you. Have a nice day.

[rmc]

> Like the majority of people, I oppose gay marriage.

That is factually incorrect. The majority of the population support marriage equality.

[TylerE]

Depends on how you define population. If I were to gamble on it, I would expect a (rather high) margin in opposition, with support rates highly correlated to education levels.

[dllthomas]

Majority of which population?

[eeky]

Majority of people - so the world population.

[dllthomas]

Yeah, I understood that's what you were talking about, from other comments - I was wondering which rmc was speaking of.

As to world population, I'm not sure you're correct (but also not at all sure you're incorrect). Yes, Russia and much of Africa and certainly the Middle East can be assumed to be majority opposed, but I'm not sure about Asian countries and that's a lot of people. Much of the west is obviously trending against you.

[nknighthb]

> Like the majority of people, I oppose gay marriage.

From your past comments, you appear to be American. I am therefore ecstatic to inform you that you are in the minority.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-...

[eeky]

I said majority of people, not Americans. My statement stands correct. Look at what other countries have done to recently stem gay culture: Russia recently passed a unanimous (436-0) vote which banned gay propaganda[1]. Homosexuals acceptance is pushed hard in the western media, but don't let that skew your worldview. Reactionary responses are not uncommon.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/russia-law-banni...

[jackmaney]

So, how are things waaaay over there on the wrong side of history?

[jackmaney]

Yes, because I was asking only about economic standing, of course...

[eeky]

You keep arguing with logical fallacies, but I'll respond anyway. Russia is doing quite well and just became the 5th largest economy[1]. They also have a news station (Russia Today) which reports on real issues - unlike western "mainstream" media. You act as if Russia is some backwater slump and not a growing modern nation. Meanwhile the western world is teetering into bankruptcy. You won't know which side of history is right until it actually becomes history.

[1] http://rt.com/business/russia-gdp-5th-largest-158/

[robotresearcher]

America grew very well economically while - and partly due to - using African slaves. The European empires dominated the planet economically while believing they had a divine mandate to exploit the savages. Wealth generation has nothing to do with the goodness of a behaviour or attitude.

[corin_]

Do you think stance on gay rights is the cause of economic problems or Russia's current situation?

It's possible that some day the entire world will despise homosexuality, or that the entire world will be fine with it. Both of those scenarios could happen regardless of whether countries currently on one side or the other end up as the world powers.

Personally I believe that gay rights will keep on improving, not get worse, and therefore you are on the wrong side of history. But I could be wrong about that, so it's fine if you disagree with my prediction. Just, disagree with it using relevant logic, not unrelated situations.

[reyan]

It's interesting that you talk about others' logical fallacies, yet you started the thread with a fallacy (appeal to majority).

[notahacker]

If you remember to control for oil wealth when graphing "acceptance of homosexuality" against per capita GDP you'll probably be surprised by how well correlated they are...

[drrotmos]

Yes, you're in great company there, with well-respected allies like Iran, Uganda and Afghanistan. Congratulations.

[autodidakto]

When in a hole, stop digging.

[beagle12]

I have registered an account on HN simply to respond to you. You are a despicable piece of worthless trash. Thank you.

[_j5l3]

As much as I agree with this sentiment, I think it's better to downvote him to invisibility and not respond to his comments.

[jackmaney]

[golf clap]

[eeky]

These are the kinds of attacks that people who stand for traditional marriage have to face. A bigoted army of people who can't muster a better argument than vulgar name calling. The irony is that they claim to stand against intolerance...

[robotresearcher]

By using euphemisms like "stand for traditional marriage" you automatically lose the argument. You do not have to defend straight marriage. No one is against it. There's nothing to stand for. In fact you are against the other things. Your position is one of sanction and oppression, not support.

[eeky]

It's changing the definition of the word, so yes there is something to stand for. If you don't believe marriage needs defending, look at the rates of marriage. Now the meaning of marriage has been diluted so much, no one wants to get married anymore - there's no point except to possibly get benefits from the state.

I could have just as easily said people who use the term "homophobic" automatically lose the argument, as there's no fear involved. This is a battle of semantics - and if we want a quality debate then we need to keep definitions consistent.

[jackmaney]

Persecution complex, much?

[ealexhudson]

This has nothing to do with marriage, and the punishment wasn't the worst factor.

[MMXII]

Why does it matter what the majority of people think?

[jlgreco]

It doesn't, though he is not even right. Bigots like him are thankfully a dying breed (literally, if you are a fan of Max Planck) in this country.

[eeky]

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reactionary swing to the left in the 1960/70's, there could very well be a reactionary swing back to the right that is emerging. (I'm using the archaic "left/right" metaphors just for sake of argument)

[jlgreco]

I am not calling for your execution in the streets, I am merely expressing glee at the fact that the American Taliban are dying of old age and heart disease faster than you can replenish your ranks.

If you think that makes me a bigot, then consider Karl Popper:

" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

You should crack a book or two. You're only 19, your brain isn't fully formed yet. There is still hope that the damage is not irreversible.

On second thought...

> "Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better."

Words cannot express how shocked I am by this comment. I thought people as stupid as you were hyperbolic strawmen... Christ.

[Karunamon]

>You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot.

Ah, the old "tolerance means accepting intolerance" card. Nope, totally haven't heard that tired old fallacy from the far right ever before.

>Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better.

Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I had a more conciliatory message here a moment ago. I'm just now noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points (i.e. "traditional marriage" is a nebulous term that means whatever its speaker is advocating for), so it is my full belief that you are just a troll.

[eeky]

>"tolerance means accepting intolerance"

That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

>Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I agree it's not relevant. I was responding to an equally irrelevant comment.

>I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points

I'm responding very frequently.

>"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term

Somewhat. But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.

[dragonwriter]

> But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception.

Marriages that are not between a man and a woman (judging both by biological sex), varying in both the number of partners of either sex and whether, among the partners, are not even remotely unprecedented before the modern debate over the current restrictions of marriage to opposite-sex partners.

Its notable that in many cases these were well-established traditional practices that were pushed aside by the advance of Christianity in the effected regions, so that the Christian model of marriage was the one that was redefining marriage away from the its existing "traditional" form.

[Karunamon]

>I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

That is not what intolerance means. Saying that I find the fact, that you want to deny same sex couples rights, to be downright reprehensible is not oppressive to you or anybody else. The same cannot be said of your views..

>But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman.

Really. I'd appreciate it if you were to quote that definition verbatim, because quite honestly I do not believe you.

I also feel I must point out that "appeal to tradition" is a straight up logical fallacy.

[salgernon]

You know, there's something I've been thinking about in relation to people like you. As part of my job, from time to time I'm asked to look at resumes of people fresh out of college (for software engineering jobs), and sometimes they'll list extra-cirricular activities like band or whatever, and I've lately seen resumes where the candidate explicitly and proudly lists gay-and-lesbian related advocacy groups.

I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.

So I wonder, if you were involved in such a group, say, the Prop 8 group in California, would you advertise that fact?

If not, why not?

[jlgreco]

When "in" members of the Phelps family attend universities, by all accounts I have heard they present themselves as regular people. Sure they don't party, but for the most part they pretend to be regular well adjusted people.

Bigots hide what they are when it is advantageous.

[eeky]

>I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.

This very fact should concern people. You rarely see people advertising their support for traditional marriage (especially in california/new york. There is a common misconception that supporting gay marriage is somehow a proud rebellious cause against the status quo. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth - virtually the entire media and up to the president support gay marriage. Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. There is something seriously wrong with that.

So no, I would not put any political organizations on my resume for a software engineering job. I rarely discuss politics/religion at work. I hope you wouldn't hire such people who jump on the bandwagon issue de jour.

[Karunamon]

>Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate.

Stop couching your views in pseudo-PC language and call it what it is. You do not "support traditional marriage" because that is a meaningless phrase. Nobody is campaigning for traditional marriage to go away - you can go have one right now!

You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else.

What you ACTUALLY support is that people who happen to love someone of the same sex should not be able to marry. That they should not receive the same spousal and tax benefits as couples who love someone of the opposite sex.

[jackmaney]

By the same idiotic line of reasoning, there should hardly be any infertile people alive at all! Oh, wait...

[jlgreco]

Where do Nuns come from if they don't have babies?!?! /s

[jackmaney]

How many points of karma does it take to unlock the ability to downvote?

[ihsw]

500, although that may change in the future.

[jackmaney]

Yeesh. I have a long way to go, then.

[eeky]

It helps if you contribute factual and useful information instead of trite emotional attacks.

[jackmaney]

Better to attack bigots who stand against marriage equality than to stand with them.

[eeky]

I'm a bigot? Please, look up the definition of bigot and then look in the mirror. I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays. You are the one intolerant of others' opinions.