3 ms·

> I don't see anything wrong with being opposed to same-sex marriage Assuming you're not opposed to the idea of marriage altogether, try to imagine different-s

by ptx 6y ago

> I don't see anything wrong with being opposed to same-sex marriage Assuming you're not opposed to the idea of marriage altogether, try to imagine different-sex marriages being illegal. Do you see now? (Just trying to help.)

krick 6y ago
No, I don't. If marriage would be a millenia-old tradition of status of same-sex pairs, that propagated into the legal system, and in the year 2020 there would be a petition to make the same status apply to different-sex pairs, and I would be a vocal proponent of that petition, I would still not see what's wrong with being opposed to that petition. That's his opinion, he has all the rights to defend it. And I would still despise anybody who has trouble understanding how active rivalry on one topic may co-exist with active cooperation on some other topic.
- ptx 6y ago
  Your argument that we must make the effort to tolerate opposing views in order to cooperate on other issues isn't helped by stating as a side-note that this requires no effort for you personally because you're not actually opposed to that view. Anyway, back on the political question, on one side you have real people being affected and on the other you have vague and abstract claims of tradition. This sure makes it feel wrong to those people affected. Edit: Perhaps the real problem is with the framing of the question. Some people just want the right to a legally recognized partnership. Some people see marriage as having religious implications. In any case it's a complicated issue that we're not going to solve here.
kybernetikos 6y ago
> Assuming you're not opposed to the idea of marriage altogether, I tend to think that the state shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. If private clubs / religions want to recognise a special ceremony between whatever groupings make sense for their club (someone suggested polyamorous families above) then they should go ahead. The state should have nothing to do with it, not recognising relationships that have had such a ceremony as different to relationships without. Now I know that is not currently the case, but I'd be more in favour of removing state recognition of any marriage than changing who the state lets get married. Places where it is genuinely useful to make the distinction should be replaced with thought-out duck-typing rather than nominative typing - if you've been living with someone as a partner for a certain amount of time, or are clearly trying to bring up children together then you should get the presumptive 'next of kin' status that the law finds helpful regardless of your ceremonial status. Or perhaps people should just have the right to add others to 'next of kin' status at will.

by ptx 6y ago

krick 6y ago

No, I don't. If marriage would be a millenia-old tradition of status of same-sex pairs, that propagated into the legal system, and in the year 2020 there would be a petition to make the same status apply to different-sex pairs, and I would be a vocal proponent of that petition, I would still not see what's wrong with being opposed to that petition. That's his opinion, he has all the rights to defend it. And I would still despise anybody who has trouble understanding how active rivalry on one topic may co-exist with active cooperation on some other topic.

ptx 6y ago
Your argument that we must make the effort to tolerate opposing views in order to cooperate on other issues isn't helped by stating as a side-note that this requires no effort for you personally because you're not actually opposed to that view. Anyway, back on the political question, on one side you have real people being affected and on the other you have vague and abstract claims of tradition. This sure makes it feel wrong to those people affected. Edit: Perhaps the real problem is with the framing of the question. Some people just want the right to a legally recognized partnership. Some people see marriage as having religious implications. In any case it's a complicated issue that we're not going to solve here.

kybernetikos 6y ago

> Assuming you're not opposed to the idea of marriage altogether, I tend to think that the state shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. If private clubs / religions want to recognise a special ceremony between whatever groupings make sense for their club (someone suggested polyamorous families above) then they should go ahead. The state should have nothing to do with it, not recognising relationships that have had such a ceremony as different to relationships without. Now I know that is not currently the case, but I'd be more in favour of removing state recognition of any marriage than changing who the state lets get married. Places where it is genuinely useful to make the distinction should be replaced with thought-out duck-typing rather than nominative typing - if you've been living with someone as a partner for a certain amount of time, or are clearly trying to bring up children together then you should get the presumptive 'next of kin' status that the law finds helpful regardless of your ceremonial status. Or perhaps people should just have the right to add others to 'next of kin' status at will.