5 ms·
It could be 99% of the voters that supported it. It's still objectively morally wrong, just like Jim Crow laws were. @jiojk542: it's morally wrong because it d
by 3am 13y ago
It could be 99% of the voters that supported it. It's still objectively morally wrong, just like Jim Crow laws were.
@jiojk542: it's morally wrong because it denies equal treatment under the law (tax benefits, government benefit benefits, survivor benefits absent a will, etc) to law abiding people. You are the one creating a false equivalency. People that would like to deny same-sex marriage are free to not marry someone of the same sex. Their freedom is not being curtailed. The same is not true the other way around. That wikipedia link is patronizing, unimpressive, and unconvincing. edit: the only "impingement" on the freedom on the anti same-sex marriage side is they must tolerate the presence of people the do not approve of. Such is the burden of a democratic, pluralistic society.
@LordKano - I literally do not understand your point. This is about the civil recognition of a personal relationship. A justice of the peace "marriage" has no religious meaning, nor does a marriage ceremony performed in a church have any civil component absent a marriage license. There are religions that allow same-sex marriage ceremonies. Are they "immoral" religions? Is it a violation of the 1rst amendment (vs the 14th) to not permit the civil recognition of those religious rituals? My point is denying an individual's right (not a privilege) on this is de facto immoral, regardless of your feelings about that individuals choice, if it does not cause demonstrable and direct harm to others.
@NeonVice - A marriage is a religion thing. A civil union is a government thing, which is currently and inconveniently also call "marriage". Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and atheist heterosexual couples can have government marriages even though they may have nothing in common with Christian marriages ideals. Nobody is forcing any church/synagogue/mosque/etc to perform a marriage ceremony of any kind they do not want to.
With those 3 replies, I will waste no more words on this damn topic.
- jiojk542 13y agoAgain... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance And why is it "objectively" morally wrong? Who gets to decide this? There is no scientific consensus on the causes of homosexuality.
- LordKano 13y agoOne of the primary objections to Prop 8 was that we can't legislate morality. Or is it that only your morality should be eligible for codification in the law?
- cpher 13y agoOf course we can, we do it all the time. What are you defining as "morality that we can't legislate?"
- NeonVice 13y agoA homosexual male could not marry a man and also a heterosexual male could not marry a man. They are both equally treated under the law. What you want is to codify attraction into the law. Government should get the hell out of marriage and instead only deal in civil unions. Individuals can decide if they are married or not.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- waps 13y ago> objectively morally wrong I wonder how the conservatives, or the taliban, or communists, or ... call their version of "objectively morally wrong". Oh wait ... probably exactly the same. > There are religions that allow same-sex marriage ceremonies Are those religions "objectively morally right", or should all their adherents be fired from their jobs ? Or maybe all the other religions ? Atheists perhaps ? Come on, who do we fire ? Who do we burn ? Do tell. > With those 3 replies, I will waste no more words on this damn topic. Exactly, you advocate firing people for their political views, and you've gotten your way. Remind to refuse any job offer or business opportunity or cooperation I ever get from you. Let's not pretend that this makes you anything but a bigot and a total asshole.
- 3am 13y agoThe difference, obviously, is that Prop 8 denies rights to some people and does not affect anyone else, aside from offending them. I don't understand your point about my comment about religions that permit same sex marriage. I think it's pretty obvious I was trying to say that morals can differ and in a pluralistic society, we err on the side of permitting individual freedom. Same-sex couples should not have to live by certain interpretations of the Talmud. Charismatic/Evangelist Christians should not be compelled to use birth control. Sikhs/Muslims/LDS members should be permitted to wear religiously significant clothing. Is that controversial? Finally, I have actually defended Eich's promotion at some length in non-HN forums. I believe that Mozilla stands for privacy protection and the highest quality open/free software. In that regard, his viewpoints/goals and mine are very close. As strongly and fundamentally as I disagree with him on other subjects, I felt his leadership would be beneficial to Mozilla. I regret he was forced out, I think it was a bad decision. Now, that being said, don't worry about turning down a job offer from me. I can disagree civilly, but you've called me a bigot and an asshole, and I am done with you.
- waps 13y agoYou seem to have rethought your position on this, your previous post defended the firing of Mozilla's CEO based on his political opinion. I am glad that you consider that wrong and I just misread you, or you changed your opinion for the better.