5 ms·

Well, that's right thing to do IMO. It may be true that what happens in people's bedrooms is not government's business, but it's also true that the state has no

Well, that's right thing to do IMO. It may be true that what happens in people's bedrooms is not government's business, but it's also true that the state has no obligation to subsidize particular lifestyles, especially when it's tantamount to waging a culture war on it's population.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
What on earth?
mikojan 4y ago
Except when the state is subsidizing heterosexual lifestyles to wage a culture war on its population
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  - ItMayWorkTryIt 4y ago
    Agreed, we should also make sure to ban interracial marriage since same culture marriages are universal among all the countries in the world. I don't know of any thriving culture which frowns on same race marriage. (Sarcasm if it wasn't obvious)
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      Not really, probably most people around the world have ancestors from different cultures and ethnicities.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - noSyncCloud 4y ago
    >Heterosexual lifestyle is universal among all countries around the world. If this were true then everyone everywhere would be in a heterosexual lifestyle. Demonstrably false.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      - washbrain 4y ago
        Almost everyone isn't red haired, doesn't make it ok to exclude red haired people just because they represent 3% of the population.
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Yet again, that's irrelevant. I think the point we are debating here is universality of heterosexuality/heteronormativity.
        washbrain 4y ago
        No, I'm not debating it. I'm asserting it. It is not a subject of debate. You might as well debate the existence of left handed people. So no, no debate. Your positions are factually wrong.
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Well, that kind of comment adds nothing to the discussion. It's certainly not as an unpopular position among the "experts" as you probably think it is [1]: > "For the Greeks, the concept did not meaningfully exist at all; the social identities we today understand in the West as a gay man or a bisexual woman, for example, simply weren’t something that people recognized." [1]: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction
  - washbrain 4y ago
    You do not see the hypocrisy in your position? Homosexuality is not unique to humans, it's common in the animal kingdom (including humans) and only unusual in some countries for cultural reasons. It's also universal among all countries around the world. Just some criminalize it.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      - washbrain 4y ago
        I'm saying there are gay men in all countries, whether they are in the open or not. Their existence might be underground or behind closed doors, but they are there.
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        If by gay you mean MSM, that's correct. But if you mean males wanting to marry each other, that's debatable.
  - lalaland1125 4y ago
    > separating the institution of marriage and the state doesn't seem like a completely unreasonable idea What does this mean precisely? Marriage without the associated state components (shared property rights, child custody rights, inheritance, etc, etc) seems like it would be much less effective than our current approach. Being able to legally form a union where are assets are shared is a really useful function of marriage, and that function relies on the state to work.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      Well, the institution of marriage is older than the nation state. So, it's independent existence is within the realm of possibility. I agree that it's a vague proposition in our era though. I'm just saying that it's not completely unreasonable.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    There are definitely cultures where, for instance, polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. I would be surprised if there'd never been a culture where heterosexual marriage (implying a life-long commitment etc.) was the exception rather than the rule. The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example though I know very little about it.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. But that's still heterosexual. > And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. > The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example But those cultures aren't thriving, are they?
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        > But that's still heterosexual I knew you'd say that. So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy? I was only replying to your claim of universality. Who knows what will be the norm in another few centuries.
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy? In the cultures which approve of it? It's none of my business. In my own country, no.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Then in your own country if the vast majority of the population approve of homosexual marriage, why is it particularly your business to be concerned about it?
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Yes, because it's the country where I live in, and I (like most other people) care about my culture.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- danny_codes 4y ago
washbrain 4y ago
> it's also true that the state has no obligation to subsidize particular lifestyles So you oppose heterosexual marriage as well? As it is also a particular lifestyle.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  See my other comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544217.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  Singapore has benefits for married couples with the intention of boosting fertility rate, such as better access to HDB's. It's inappropriate to apply this to pairs of men. Also, note that it has two kinds of marriages already, with different rules -- civil marriage, and Muslim marriage.
pertymcpert 4y ago
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  - washbrain 4y ago
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      - washbrain 4y ago
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        washbrain 4y ago
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        washbrain 4y ago
- noSyncCloud 4y ago
8note 4y ago
Isn't this amendment adding an obligation on which lifestyles the state can subsidize though? If the state should be free to choose, it should be free to choose, not be limited by the constitutional text. You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though. Are gay people not part of "the population" ? I'd expect the population to be the set of all people in the country, not some subset that you happen to like
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > If the state should be free to choose, it should be free to choose, not be limited by the constitutional text. I'm making a distinction between the state and the government. The state also includes people who write and interpret the constitution. > You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though. I'm not sure why would you think I'd be against that. > not some subset that you happen to like It's not just some subset, it's the overwhelming majority.
dang 4y ago
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you favor. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  Well, I object to this for multiple reasons. First of all, it would be nice of you to at least looked at the responses to this comment, and reminded users that many of those are explicitly against HN guidelines (which is objectively true, with comments like just "What on earth?" [1], and my comment is essentially stating an opinion clearly acceptable in e.g. Singapore, and I know one of your goals on HN is to not be completely US-centric). Browbeating is clearly not what HN is for, and IMO allowing it would cause a lot more damage than allowing accounts primarily used for politics. Curious political discussion has some real content, browbeating doesn't. Secondly, the effect of that policy is to essentially ban accountants with unpopular political opinions on one side of the spectrum (because people don't want to associate it with their normal work, for obvious reasons). One evidence for this is that you've probably banned more accounts on one side of political spectrum with that rationale. That should be easy to check, since the politics of accounts which use HN primarily for politics should be quite clear from their commenting history. I'm not accusing you of personal conscious bias against right-wingers in moderation here, I'm just pointing out that policy would result in more of them getting banned, since more of them have no choice but to try to conceal their identity (due to "consequences" at work, etc.). Remember what happened to Brendan Eich? Thirdly, I disagree with your characterization of my comments as "ideological battle". I'm merely stating my political opinions, I have tried to never escalate into personal attacks, and I have tried to always add something concrete and interesting to the discussion, along the HN'a norm of intellectual curiosity. To me, ideological "battle" would imply the kind of dogmatic political rallying I got in response to my comment. Finally, it seems that you are banning my account on a first strike. I don't remember having any previous negative interaction with the mods. P.S. After posting this, I also noticed that you have "shadow banned" me, in the sense that my comment looks completely normal to myself when logged in, but I can't find a trace of it when logged out. That's an unethical practice in my books, and something that you have explicitly stated that you reserve for spammers and serial trolls [2]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544213 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30342925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30342925

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

What on earth?

mikojan 4y ago

Except when the state is subsidizing heterosexual lifestyles to wage a culture war on its population

cato_the_elder 4y ago
- ItMayWorkTryIt 4y ago
  Agreed, we should also make sure to ban interracial marriage since same culture marriages are universal among all the countries in the world. I don't know of any thriving culture which frowns on same race marriage. (Sarcasm if it wasn't obvious)
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    Not really, probably most people around the world have ancestors from different cultures and ethnicities.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- noSyncCloud 4y ago
  >Heterosexual lifestyle is universal among all countries around the world. If this were true then everyone everywhere would be in a heterosexual lifestyle. Demonstrably false.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    - washbrain 4y ago
      Almost everyone isn't red haired, doesn't make it ok to exclude red haired people just because they represent 3% of the population.
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Yet again, that's irrelevant. I think the point we are debating here is universality of heterosexuality/heteronormativity.
        washbrain 4y ago
        No, I'm not debating it. I'm asserting it. It is not a subject of debate. You might as well debate the existence of left handed people. So no, no debate. Your positions are factually wrong.
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Well, that kind of comment adds nothing to the discussion. It's certainly not as an unpopular position among the "experts" as you probably think it is [1]: > "For the Greeks, the concept did not meaningfully exist at all; the social identities we today understand in the West as a gay man or a bisexual woman, for example, simply weren’t something that people recognized." [1]: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction
- washbrain 4y ago
  You do not see the hypocrisy in your position? Homosexuality is not unique to humans, it's common in the animal kingdom (including humans) and only unusual in some countries for cultural reasons. It's also universal among all countries around the world. Just some criminalize it.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    - washbrain 4y ago
      I'm saying there are gay men in all countries, whether they are in the open or not. Their existence might be underground or behind closed doors, but they are there.
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        If by gay you mean MSM, that's correct. But if you mean males wanting to marry each other, that's debatable.
- lalaland1125 4y ago
  > separating the institution of marriage and the state doesn't seem like a completely unreasonable idea What does this mean precisely? Marriage without the associated state components (shared property rights, child custody rights, inheritance, etc, etc) seems like it would be much less effective than our current approach. Being able to legally form a union where are assets are shared is a really useful function of marriage, and that function relies on the state to work.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    Well, the institution of marriage is older than the nation state. So, it's independent existence is within the realm of possibility. I agree that it's a vague proposition in our era though. I'm just saying that it's not completely unreasonable.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  There are definitely cultures where, for instance, polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. I would be surprised if there'd never been a culture where heterosexual marriage (implying a life-long commitment etc.) was the exception rather than the rule. The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example though I know very little about it.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. But that's still heterosexual. > And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. > The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example But those cultures aren't thriving, are they?
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      > But that's still heterosexual I knew you'd say that. So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy? I was only replying to your claim of universality. Who knows what will be the norm in another few centuries.
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy? In the cultures which approve of it? It's none of my business. In my own country, no.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Then in your own country if the vast majority of the population approve of homosexual marriage, why is it particularly your business to be concerned about it?
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Yes, because it's the country where I live in, and I (like most other people) care about my culture.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
danny_codes 4y ago

washbrain 4y ago

> it's also true that the state has no obligation to subsidize particular lifestyles So you oppose heterosexual marriage as well? As it is also a particular lifestyle.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
See my other comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544217.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
SamReidHughes 4y ago
Singapore has benefits for married couples with the intention of boosting fertility rate, such as better access to HDB's. It's inappropriate to apply this to pairs of men. Also, note that it has two kinds of marriages already, with different rules -- civil marriage, and Muslim marriage.

pertymcpert 4y ago

cato_the_elder 4y ago
- washbrain 4y ago
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    - washbrain 4y ago
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        washbrain 4y ago
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        washbrain 4y ago
noSyncCloud 4y ago

8note 4y ago

Isn't this amendment adding an obligation on which lifestyles the state can subsidize though? If the state should be free to choose, it should be free to choose, not be limited by the constitutional text. You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though. Are gay people not part of "the population" ? I'd expect the population to be the set of all people in the country, not some subset that you happen to like

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> If the state should be free to choose, it should be free to choose, not be limited by the constitutional text. I'm making a distinction between the state and the government. The state also includes people who write and interpret the constitution. > You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though. I'm not sure why would you think I'd be against that. > not some subset that you happen to like It's not just some subset, it's the overwhelming majority.

dang 4y ago

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you favor. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

cato_the_elder 4y ago
Well, I object to this for multiple reasons. First of all, it would be nice of you to at least looked at the responses to this comment, and reminded users that many of those are explicitly against HN guidelines (which is objectively true, with comments like just "What on earth?" [1], and my comment is essentially stating an opinion clearly acceptable in e.g. Singapore, and I know one of your goals on HN is to not be completely US-centric). Browbeating is clearly not what HN is for, and IMO allowing it would cause a lot more damage than allowing accounts primarily used for politics. Curious political discussion has some real content, browbeating doesn't. Secondly, the effect of that policy is to essentially ban accountants with unpopular political opinions on one side of the spectrum (because people don't want to associate it with their normal work, for obvious reasons). One evidence for this is that you've probably banned more accounts on one side of political spectrum with that rationale. That should be easy to check, since the politics of accounts which use HN primarily for politics should be quite clear from their commenting history. I'm not accusing you of personal conscious bias against right-wingers in moderation here, I'm just pointing out that policy would result in more of them getting banned, since more of them have no choice but to try to conceal their identity (due to "consequences" at work, etc.). Remember what happened to Brendan Eich? Thirdly, I disagree with your characterization of my comments as "ideological battle". I'm merely stating my political opinions, I have tried to never escalate into personal attacks, and I have tried to always add something concrete and interesting to the discussion, along the HN'a norm of intellectual curiosity. To me, ideological "battle" would imply the kind of dogmatic political rallying I got in response to my comment. Finally, it seems that you are banning my account on a first strike. I don't remember having any previous negative interaction with the mods. P.S. After posting this, I also noticed that you have "shadow banned" me, in the sense that my comment looks completely normal to myself when logged in, but I can't find a trace of it when logged out. That's an unethical practice in my books, and something that you have explicitly stated that you reserve for spammers and serial trolls [2]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544213 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30342925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30342925