4 ms·

> And it wasn't removing the right for gays to marry, it was to keep the proposal from becoming a law. Additionally, it is not about the right to marry, it is

by mongol 5y ago

> And it wasn't removing the right for gays to marry, it was to keep the proposal from becoming a law. Additionally, it is not about the right to marry, it is about marriage as an institution and what is meant with it. Everyone had equal rights to marry also before, it is just that gays do not want to marry somone from the opposite sex.

space_fountain 5y ago
I sort of thought we had had this discussion already. Gay people don’t have heterosexual relationships in the same way a straight person does, yes they are free to marry, but not in the way they’d actually want to. Also the very best you can get to about marriage as a traditional even religious institution is maybe the government shouldn’t be running it. Thinking otherwise isn’t just an opinion a bit out of the mainstream anymore at least among the class that works for tech companies. Can you imagine if he’d donated to a cause that was against inter racial marriages?
- mongol 5y ago
  > Can you imagine if he’d donated to a cause that was against inter racial marriages? That is not the same thing and is far from the point I am making. It would be the same thing if he argued, "gay people can't marry, period". But an argument that "marriage is a life long commitment between a man and a woman" is something different. Not about gay people, it is about marriage as an institution with a special status. Note, I am not entering this discussion to argue what is right or wrong. But I think it is an entirely valid opinion to have, and not something to be cancelled for.
  - space_fountain 5y ago
    But the point I'm making is that being against interracial marriage, even if it were somehow just about something like marriage is definitionally not interracial would rightly be considered cancelable to most people. The reason I think that the examples seem different is merely that their badness seems different to you. There isn't some set of things that are clearly ok to sanction someone over and some set that aren't. It's all merely about how clearcut you think the issue is and that will always be political. To be clear though I do think this is a clear cut issue. Not to get into the weeds on it, but I do think your options are either believing that marriage should not be a function of government at all, or believing that marriage between two same sex people should be allowed
Spivak 5y ago
"Everyone has the same access to marriage, interracial couples just don't want to marry someone of the same skin color." No it's about the right for gays to access a legal secular institution. Civil unions do not confer all the rights and privileges of marriage. One of the possible resolutions to gay marriage was to make the legal institution for everyone called a civil-union but that proposal died almost immediately in the mid 2000s.
jjulius 5y ago
> Everyone had equal rights to marry also before... Well that's just not true.
- mongol 5y ago
  It is true. It is just that who they wanted to marry was not whom they had the right to marry. A gay man had the right to marry a woman just as much as a straight man had.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjulius 5y ago
    >It is just that who they wanted to marry was not whom they had the right to marry. Which inherently makes it an unequal right.
    - mongol 5y ago
      No it is equal. Everyone can marry according to the definition of what a marriage is (was). It is just that some people have preferences that don't align with that. But it is no different than if someone polygamous want to marry several women. Their preference don't align with what marriage is defined as, but they have exactly the same rights.

by mongol 5y ago

space_fountain 5y ago

I sort of thought we had had this discussion already. Gay people don’t have heterosexual relationships in the same way a straight person does, yes they are free to marry, but not in the way they’d actually want to. Also the very best you can get to about marriage as a traditional even religious institution is maybe the government shouldn’t be running it. Thinking otherwise isn’t just an opinion a bit out of the mainstream anymore at least among the class that works for tech companies. Can you imagine if he’d donated to a cause that was against inter racial marriages?

mongol 5y ago
> Can you imagine if he’d donated to a cause that was against inter racial marriages? That is not the same thing and is far from the point I am making. It would be the same thing if he argued, "gay people can't marry, period". But an argument that "marriage is a life long commitment between a man and a woman" is something different. Not about gay people, it is about marriage as an institution with a special status. Note, I am not entering this discussion to argue what is right or wrong. But I think it is an entirely valid opinion to have, and not something to be cancelled for.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  But the point I'm making is that being against interracial marriage, even if it were somehow just about something like marriage is definitionally not interracial would rightly be considered cancelable to most people. The reason I think that the examples seem different is merely that their badness seems different to you. There isn't some set of things that are clearly ok to sanction someone over and some set that aren't. It's all merely about how clearcut you think the issue is and that will always be political. To be clear though I do think this is a clear cut issue. Not to get into the weeds on it, but I do think your options are either believing that marriage should not be a function of government at all, or believing that marriage between two same sex people should be allowed

Spivak 5y ago

"Everyone has the same access to marriage, interracial couples just don't want to marry someone of the same skin color." No it's about the right for gays to access a legal secular institution. Civil unions do not confer all the rights and privileges of marriage. One of the possible resolutions to gay marriage was to make the legal institution for everyone called a civil-union but that proposal died almost immediately in the mid 2000s.

jjulius 5y ago

> Everyone had equal rights to marry also before... Well that's just not true.

mongol 5y ago
It is true. It is just that who they wanted to marry was not whom they had the right to marry. A gay man had the right to marry a woman just as much as a straight man had.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jjulius 5y ago
  >It is just that who they wanted to marry was not whom they had the right to marry. Which inherently makes it an unequal right.
  - mongol 5y ago
    No it is equal. Everyone can marry according to the definition of what a marriage is (was). It is just that some people have preferences that don't align with that. But it is no different than if someone polygamous want to marry several women. Their preference don't align with what marriage is defined as, but they have exactly the same rights.