4 ms·

I am explaining to you that you are trying to call a steak a cake. The biological nature of your preference is irrelevant. You want to redefine marriage, but

I am explaining to you that you are trying to call a steak a cake. The biological nature of your preference is irrelevant. You want to redefine marriage, but by the current definition there is no inequality. You are as free to marry as anyone else. Your desired redefinition is stupid for two reasons: 1) The obvious biological and social dynamics of heterosexual reproduction. 2) The entire first world has shared a common definition of marriage whereas those places with weirder norms are all shit holes. It's a proven institution and fucking with it is a dangerous slippery slope. This is not about mean religious crazies who want to make you sad. There's a lot more at stake when you go tinkering with this stuff.

earl 17y ago
"The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges of Paris"
- kingkongrevenge 17y ago
  I hope you just wanted to turn a phrase and can actually see how facile that is.
  - tlrobinson 17y ago
    And that (this entire thread) is why we try to keep politics and such off Hacker News.
qw 17y ago
I think you need to distinguish between the religious/cultural definition of marriage, and the legal definition. I agree that we can't force priests to marry in the name of their God, because that's a matter of faith. That decision should be made by each individual church. But it is also not fair to impose our cultural definitions on others when it comes to legal status. It seems strange that we give non-christian marriages the same status, while homosexuals in the same situation are treated differently. It is also false that the definition of a marriage is the same in the "first world". Other countries have managed to separate the religious definition of marriage from the legal definition. I'm not gay, and I have to admit that I look another way when two men kiss. But that doesn't mean I don't respect their situation, and want to give them the same rights as myself.

earl 17y ago

"The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges of Paris"

kingkongrevenge 17y ago
I hope you just wanted to turn a phrase and can actually see how facile that is.
- tlrobinson 17y ago
  And that (this entire thread) is why we try to keep politics and such off Hacker News.

qw 17y ago

I think you need to distinguish between the religious/cultural definition of marriage, and the legal definition. I agree that we can't force priests to marry in the name of their God, because that's a matter of faith. That decision should be made by each individual church. But it is also not fair to impose our cultural definitions on others when it comes to legal status. It seems strange that we give non-christian marriages the same status, while homosexuals in the same situation are treated differently. It is also false that the definition of a marriage is the same in the "first world". Other countries have managed to separate the religious definition of marriage from the legal definition. I'm not gay, and I have to admit that I look another way when two men kiss. But that doesn't mean I don't respect their situation, and want to give them the same rights as myself.