5 ms·

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but this position seems widely held and it's a little baffling. Marriage is itself nothing more than a cultural tradition. If yo

by shasta 11y ago

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but this position seems widely held and it's a little baffling. Marriage is itself nothing more than a cultural tradition. If you don't agree, go work out a logical derivation of why the practice of pairing up is optimal and report back. From that perspective, is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions? On the balance, I think gay marriage is a good idea, but I also think there's something to be said for going slow when abandoning traditions.

MisterBastahrd 11y ago
Marriage has specific social benefits that the government wants to encourage. It also helps to streamline certain bureaucratic processes. At the end of the day, it's simple: it's not your marriage, so why do you care?
saganus 11y ago
> is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions? Well, no. I guess not. And in that context, there will definitely always be a broad spectrum of those that want to keep traditions as such, and those that want change. But it seems that at least for this particular tradition, it gets trickier to just consider it "a tradition" since it is so intertwined with the legal definition, for some countries at least. So even though it's "just" a cultural tradition, it makes a big effect on the outcome of legal matters. I mean, I've seen groups that oppose same-sex marriage suggest calling that "legal relationship between two people" something other than marriage, giving it the same rights and that would be enough. The thing I try to imagine is, what would happen if some country would completely decouple the marriage term from the legal definition, if that would make things better or not. As long as every legal matter related to the definition of this new term is updated, and so referring to marriage would only be at the religious level (no other consequences than that), what would happen? would that be a good solution for most? or would it be maybe just enough ? I'm pretty sure there would be people disliking the idea of having a different term, however legally equivalent it may be, and probably they could give good reasons, but would it be the majority or a minority? I have honestly no idea.
- shasta 11y ago
  There's a legal aspect, but that's still just a law codifying cultural norms. Why do people have to wear clothes in public? The libertarian abstraction of people as living in isolation from one another until they choose to interact is a good example of a leaky abstraction.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
> If you don't agree, go work out a logical derivation of why the practice of pairing up is optimal and report back. You can't exactly do it from first principles, or from Euclid's five axioms. It's arbitrary, but it's an arbitrary part of the society we live in, so there are reasons why marrying - as opposed to just 'pairing up' - is optimal. 1. Family rights - if your partner is sick and in the hospital, marriage allows you to make decisions on their behalf, gives you visitation rights, and allows you to receive benefits if worse comes to worst. It also gives you greater rights when it comes to any children you may have. 2. Taxes - the government gives incentives to married couples. (We could argue that in states where gay marriage is prohibited this is not the case, but that just sounds like more discrimination.)
jazzyk 11y ago
But marriage is a non-religious concept, plenty of atheist/non-spiritual people get married. Noone is forcing religious organizations to perform gay marriage ceremonies in their places of worship.

by shasta 11y ago

MisterBastahrd 11y ago

Marriage has specific social benefits that the government wants to encourage. It also helps to streamline certain bureaucratic processes. At the end of the day, it's simple: it's not your marriage, so why do you care?

saganus 11y ago

> is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions? Well, no. I guess not. And in that context, there will definitely always be a broad spectrum of those that want to keep traditions as such, and those that want change. But it seems that at least for this particular tradition, it gets trickier to just consider it "a tradition" since it is so intertwined with the legal definition, for some countries at least. So even though it's "just" a cultural tradition, it makes a big effect on the outcome of legal matters. I mean, I've seen groups that oppose same-sex marriage suggest calling that "legal relationship between two people" something other than marriage, giving it the same rights and that would be enough. The thing I try to imagine is, what would happen if some country would completely decouple the marriage term from the legal definition, if that would make things better or not. As long as every legal matter related to the definition of this new term is updated, and so referring to marriage would only be at the religious level (no other consequences than that), what would happen? would that be a good solution for most? or would it be maybe just enough ? I'm pretty sure there would be people disliking the idea of having a different term, however legally equivalent it may be, and probably they could give good reasons, but would it be the majority or a minority? I have honestly no idea.

shasta 11y ago
There's a legal aspect, but that's still just a law codifying cultural norms. Why do people have to wear clothes in public? The libertarian abstraction of people as living in isolation from one another until they choose to interact is a good example of a leaky abstraction.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

> If you don't agree, go work out a logical derivation of why the practice of pairing up is optimal and report back. You can't exactly do it from first principles, or from Euclid's five axioms. It's arbitrary, but it's an arbitrary part of the society we live in, so there are reasons why marrying - as opposed to just 'pairing up' - is optimal. 1. Family rights - if your partner is sick and in the hospital, marriage allows you to make decisions on their behalf, gives you visitation rights, and allows you to receive benefits if worse comes to worst. It also gives you greater rights when it comes to any children you may have. 2. Taxes - the government gives incentives to married couples. (We could argue that in states where gay marriage is prohibited this is not the case, but that just sounds like more discrimination.)

jazzyk 11y ago

But marriage is a non-religious concept, plenty of atheist/non-spiritual people get married. Noone is forcing religious organizations to perform gay marriage ceremonies in their places of worship.