3 ms·

The solution is incredibly simple: believe what you want, marry who you love (so long as there's consent all round), and let others do the same. The entire iss

The solution is incredibly simple: believe what you want, marry who you love (so long as there's consent all round), and let others do the same. The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted.

nailer 13y ago
> The solution is incredibly simple: believe what you want... and let others do the same. There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. > The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted. There are many restrictions put in place because they are voted for based of peoples beliefs, including their religious ones. Why can this not be permitted? How can we know if a law is religiously motivated? I shouldn't have to say this, but HN quality these days is so poor that I will: I support gay marriage. But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't. And I don't think people should be punished for voting in a way that meets their moral beliefs, even if those moral beliefs are spiritually grounded.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. There's not much point to claiming a free society if a religious bloc can vote away everyone else's freedom.
  - nailer 13y ago
    What you've said is true, but this is the nature of democracy. A bloc of /any kind/ can vote away everyone else's freedom. You might not support that, which is reasonable, there's a lot of Libertarians in tech and I do understand where they're coming from. http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg illustrates the point quite nicely. However: most people don't understand or agree with this, and believe in democracy and its compromises, including shitty things likes rules that may restrict you based on a majority of opponents.
    - coldpie 13y ago
      > A bloc of /any kind/ can vote away everyone else's freedom. Under the US constitution, this is blatantly false. See, for example, the First through Fourth Amendments, which place restrictions on what sorts of laws can be created.
      - nailer 13y ago
        I'm not American, so by no means an expert. Can't the constitution also be modified through vote, either by national convention or via representatives, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federa... ?
        Solarsail 13y ago
        And Prop 8 itself was a constitutional amendment. It was only overturned due to the constitution above it; And that constitution was not amended. (Also speaking as a non-american).
- coldpie 13y ago
  > How can we know if a law is religiously motivated? If it can be justified through non-religious means, then the law itself can be described as not being religiously motivated. Opposing gay marriage cannot be justified through non-religious means. And it's not through lack of trying, just look at any of the recent court cases. > There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. Sure there is. You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution. > But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't. The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were.
  - nailer 13y ago
    > Opposing gay marriage cannot be justified through non-religious means. Yes it can. Someone against gay marriage may make a point that marriage is a framework for raising children and that children have the right to parents of both genders, for example. You may feel that it shouldn't be justified that way, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be justified that way by others. > You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution. Morality is enforced on others all the time, frequently in the US. Sometimes it's more religiously informed, other times less so. Most people are religious, and hence most people's morality is informed by their religion. > The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were. Gay marriage may be black and white in 2050, but it isn't now for most people - that's why they voted against it. Women's suffrage is a black and white issue now, but it certainly wasn't at the time. They are significant changes with how we, as a society, live, and while you may not struggle with it, other people may - especially older people, that doesn't mean they should be punished. Eich has convictions that are typical of his age and religious viewpoints. I don't agree, but I do understand and he is allowed to have those viewpoints. Note: since this post has the HN 'controversial' flag set, I can't reply readily - this post took a few hours to be able to send, so this will be my last post in the thread. Thanks for being pleasant, even if we disagree.
defen 13y ago
That framework is rather simplistic, isn't it? What conceptual basis to you have for preventing a man from marrying, for example, his own brother? Or for preventing polygamy? Or are you suggesting we should allow those things also?
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  The fact that it leads to things you might not personally approve of does not bother me. I have no issue with polygamy, for example, so long as everyone involved knows what they're getting into and consents to it (and I know a few people who are or have been in poly relationships, and see no reason why they shouldn't be able to formally commit in those relationships if they wish).
  - defen 13y ago
    Well, the problem is that polygamy is not good for society, even though it is good for some individuals. You end up with a bunch of rich older men with multiple wives, and very limited romantic prospects for younger men. And you definitely don't want large numbers of sexually frustrated young men in your society. We've been moving in that direction (toward de-facto polygamy) for 50 some years now, with the pill, breakdown of traditional marriage, societal acceptance of premarital sex, etc. Luckily, entertainment outlets (porn, video games, etc) have also improved dramatically, providing an outlet for some, but I don't think that is necessarily to the benefit of society either.

nailer 13y ago

> The solution is incredibly simple: believe what you want... and let others do the same. There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. > The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted. There are many restrictions put in place because they are voted for based of peoples beliefs, including their religious ones. Why can this not be permitted? How can we know if a law is religiously motivated? I shouldn't have to say this, but HN quality these days is so poor that I will: I support gay marriage. But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't. And I don't think people should be punished for voting in a way that meets their moral beliefs, even if those moral beliefs are spiritually grounded.

ubernostrum 13y ago
There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. There's not much point to claiming a free society if a religious bloc can vote away everyone else's freedom.
- nailer 13y ago
  What you've said is true, but this is the nature of democracy. A bloc of /any kind/ can vote away everyone else's freedom. You might not support that, which is reasonable, there's a lot of Libertarians in tech and I do understand where they're coming from. http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg illustrates the point quite nicely. However: most people don't understand or agree with this, and believe in democracy and its compromises, including shitty things likes rules that may restrict you based on a majority of opponents.
  - coldpie 13y ago
    > A bloc of /any kind/ can vote away everyone else's freedom. Under the US constitution, this is blatantly false. See, for example, the First through Fourth Amendments, which place restrictions on what sorts of laws can be created.
    - nailer 13y ago
      I'm not American, so by no means an expert. Can't the constitution also be modified through vote, either by national convention or via representatives, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federa... ?
      - Solarsail 13y ago
        And Prop 8 itself was a constitutional amendment. It was only overturned due to the constitution above it; And that constitution was not amended. (Also speaking as a non-american).
coldpie 13y ago
> How can we know if a law is religiously motivated? If it can be justified through non-religious means, then the law itself can be described as not being religiously motivated. Opposing gay marriage cannot be justified through non-religious means. And it's not through lack of trying, just look at any of the recent court cases. > There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs. Sure there is. You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution. > But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't. The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were.
- nailer 13y ago
  > Opposing gay marriage cannot be justified through non-religious means. Yes it can. Someone against gay marriage may make a point that marriage is a framework for raising children and that children have the right to parents of both genders, for example. You may feel that it shouldn't be justified that way, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be justified that way by others. > You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution. Morality is enforced on others all the time, frequently in the US. Sometimes it's more religiously informed, other times less so. Most people are religious, and hence most people's morality is informed by their religion. > The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were. Gay marriage may be black and white in 2050, but it isn't now for most people - that's why they voted against it. Women's suffrage is a black and white issue now, but it certainly wasn't at the time. They are significant changes with how we, as a society, live, and while you may not struggle with it, other people may - especially older people, that doesn't mean they should be punished. Eich has convictions that are typical of his age and religious viewpoints. I don't agree, but I do understand and he is allowed to have those viewpoints. Note: since this post has the HN 'controversial' flag set, I can't reply readily - this post took a few hours to be able to send, so this will be my last post in the thread. Thanks for being pleasant, even if we disagree.

defen 13y ago

That framework is rather simplistic, isn't it? What conceptual basis to you have for preventing a man from marrying, for example, his own brother? Or for preventing polygamy? Or are you suggesting we should allow those things also?

ubernostrum 13y ago
The fact that it leads to things you might not personally approve of does not bother me. I have no issue with polygamy, for example, so long as everyone involved knows what they're getting into and consents to it (and I know a few people who are or have been in poly relationships, and see no reason why they shouldn't be able to formally commit in those relationships if they wish).
- defen 13y ago
  Well, the problem is that polygamy is not good for society, even though it is good for some individuals. You end up with a bunch of rich older men with multiple wives, and very limited romantic prospects for younger men. And you definitely don't want large numbers of sexually frustrated young men in your society. We've been moving in that direction (toward de-facto polygamy) for 50 some years now, with the pill, breakdown of traditional marriage, societal acceptance of premarital sex, etc. Luckily, entertainment outlets (porn, video games, etc) have also improved dramatically, providing an outlet for some, but I don't think that is necessarily to the benefit of society either.