3 ms·

> Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. You know, I'm sick and tired of this lie. A homose

by wtbob 12y ago

> Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. You know, I'm sick and tired of this lie. A homosexual has exactly the same right to marriage as a heterosexual: a gay man is exactly as free to marry any unmarried consenting woman as a normal man and a lesbian is exactly free to marry any unmarried consenting man as a normal woman. The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation.

mkr-hn 12y ago
> The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation. I bet you're hard at work trying to deny infertile couples the ability to marry. Even if you were right, which you aren't, tradition is not a compelling argument. We've done away with a lot of stupid traditions, like slavery and dowry. Even if you were right, which you aren't, gay couples can adopt. I could go on, but why? Your arguments are tired and baseless.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  And how about older couples, past the childbearing age? Should they not be allowed to marry? Should couples be forced to divorce after 50? This preposterous argument about 'its about producing a new generation' is sophomoric and lazy. It doesn't stand up to a few seconds of reflection. Yet I hear it again and again - its even part of the Mormon official line.
- beauSD 12y ago
  Once we get to the point of calling basic human anatomy 'baseless', we've definitely gone off the deep end as a society. This is not about infertility due to medical conditions or age and it's not about tradition - it's about the fact that a man and a woman having sex is the way that human beings are produced. Everything else is an attempt to ignore reality to suit our our personal desires.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    How about birth control? Marriage? These are ignoring the very human impulse to procreate constantly and with many people. Are they wrong too? That procreation argument is silly. Human beings order themselves into societies, and not as some sort of procreation machine. But instead to encourage kindness, cooperation, happiness. We have laws to keep from harming one another, and roofs over our heads to keep us warmer and dryer than we 'naturally' would have been. This is what it means to be human, too.
    - beauSD 12y ago
      Yeah, I would argue that yielding to the impulse to 'procreate constantly' outside of marriage would be equally as harmful as following any other sexual desires (homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc) that doesn't line up with how sex and marriage are meant to work - that is one man marrying one woman and them having sex.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        "Meant to work" is very strange here. First monogamy it supposed to be a natural state. Now its an artificial social construction? Then what's so precious about it? Versus the other states that people are, and have been, living in for centuries? Oh I get it - argue whatever it takes to make male-female marriage sacred and anything else wrong. Ok. I see.
        beauSD 12y ago
        I can see how 'meant to work' would sound strange, especially since we normally talk about sex as something that should be based solely on our individual physical urges - whatever they may be. I would say that marriage and sex get their value and purpose from God. That he created man and woman to come together in marriage and have sex. That he made sex pleasurable, and good, and that one of the benefits of sex is often that children are produced. I think we must either get our understanding of sex and marriage from a source outside ourselves (the transcendent God) or we just make things up to suit our individual drives - and the second option opens us up as individuals, and as a society, to a lot of harm. I understand this is not a popular viewpoint, especially on HN, but I think it's valuable to offer some pushback in a civil way every now and then.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation. If you look at the actual legal structure of marriage outside of who is permitted into it, that's very obviously not the case for the civil institution of marriage -- virtually all of the legal effects are directed toward the creation of a legal relationship of mutual support between the partners. Even the pieces that relate to children (e.g., the presumption of paternity) directly serve the purpose of reinforcing the mutual support relationship between the partners. One could argue that one of the (many) social functions served by this mutual support arrangements which justifies having a prepackaged, publicy-recognized set of obligations, permissions, and legal privileges for mutual support is the creation of a superior environment within which to raise children, but there are other public functions served, and n any case an environment for raising children doesn't require that children be produced by the people raising them.

by wtbob 12y ago

mkr-hn 12y ago

> The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation. I bet you're hard at work trying to deny infertile couples the ability to marry. Even if you were right, which you aren't, tradition is not a compelling argument. We've done away with a lot of stupid traditions, like slavery and dowry. Even if you were right, which you aren't, gay couples can adopt. I could go on, but why? Your arguments are tired and baseless.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
And how about older couples, past the childbearing age? Should they not be allowed to marry? Should couples be forced to divorce after 50? This preposterous argument about 'its about producing a new generation' is sophomoric and lazy. It doesn't stand up to a few seconds of reflection. Yet I hear it again and again - its even part of the Mormon official line.
beauSD 12y ago
Once we get to the point of calling basic human anatomy 'baseless', we've definitely gone off the deep end as a society. This is not about infertility due to medical conditions or age and it's not about tradition - it's about the fact that a man and a woman having sex is the way that human beings are produced. Everything else is an attempt to ignore reality to suit our our personal desires.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  How about birth control? Marriage? These are ignoring the very human impulse to procreate constantly and with many people. Are they wrong too? That procreation argument is silly. Human beings order themselves into societies, and not as some sort of procreation machine. But instead to encourage kindness, cooperation, happiness. We have laws to keep from harming one another, and roofs over our heads to keep us warmer and dryer than we 'naturally' would have been. This is what it means to be human, too.
  - beauSD 12y ago
    Yeah, I would argue that yielding to the impulse to 'procreate constantly' outside of marriage would be equally as harmful as following any other sexual desires (homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc) that doesn't line up with how sex and marriage are meant to work - that is one man marrying one woman and them having sex.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      "Meant to work" is very strange here. First monogamy it supposed to be a natural state. Now its an artificial social construction? Then what's so precious about it? Versus the other states that people are, and have been, living in for centuries? Oh I get it - argue whatever it takes to make male-female marriage sacred and anything else wrong. Ok. I see.
      - beauSD 12y ago
        I can see how 'meant to work' would sound strange, especially since we normally talk about sex as something that should be based solely on our individual physical urges - whatever they may be. I would say that marriage and sex get their value and purpose from God. That he created man and woman to come together in marriage and have sex. That he made sex pleasurable, and good, and that one of the benefits of sex is often that children are produced. I think we must either get our understanding of sex and marriage from a source outside ourselves (the transcendent God) or we just make things up to suit our individual drives - and the second option opens us up as individuals, and as a society, to a lot of harm. I understand this is not a popular viewpoint, especially on HN, but I think it's valuable to offer some pushback in a civil way every now and then.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation. If you look at the actual legal structure of marriage outside of who is permitted into it, that's very obviously not the case for the civil institution of marriage -- virtually all of the legal effects are directed toward the creation of a legal relationship of mutual support between the partners. Even the pieces that relate to children (e.g., the presumption of paternity) directly serve the purpose of reinforcing the mutual support relationship between the partners. One could argue that one of the (many) social functions served by this mutual support arrangements which justifies having a prepackaged, publicy-recognized set of obligations, permissions, and legal privileges for mutual support is the creation of a superior environment within which to raise children, but there are other public functions served, and n any case an environment for raising children doesn't require that children be produced by the people raising them.