Hacker News Reader

Comment by billybob | Hacker News Reader

So we start with "how to put gay marriage in a database" and end with "marriage is a union between any number of people, where people can come and go as they please." By that definition, I could be married to the company where I work.

Truly, an obliteration of any meaning to the word "marriage."

Really, I think we should start over. What is marriage, in the eyes of the state? Why should it grant special privileges to encourage it? Does society reap benefits from having a man and a woman committed to each other? Does it benefit from having eight people of varying sexes and self-declared genders semi-committed to one another in varying degrees? Are we prepared to draw a line somewhere and - gasp! - judge some unions better than others?

If we don't have widely-accepted answers to that, maybe we should stop recognizing marriages legally, substitute designations like "this person can make decisions for me if I'm ill," and leave marriage to be a religious designation only.

View on HN

The state of Washington recently passed a law that replaced every mention of "marriage", "husband", or "wife" in state law with "marriage or domestic partnership" and "spouse or partner". This had the net result of conferring all of the same (state-level) benefits on same-sex couples and on elderly people who didn't want to remarry but were in new relationships, while completely avoiding the social/religious question of whether person X thinks relationship Y is acceptable or should be called "marriage".

From a database perspective, there's no reason the Washington state database needs to track gender. It needs to track who's involved in the legal relationship and what legal rights they have regarding each other's person and property. (If we wish to make things more complicated by allowing arbitrary graphs for relationships, we need to write the laws governing those rights more carefully.)

Right now by defining it as "one man, one woman" the opposition is pissing off 10+% of the population. Claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality is inflammatory. It's like saying that being religious is a dangerous choice because everyone knows it leads you to kill unbelievers.

Redefinition depends on how far you want to go to deconstruct the term "spouse". In addition to making decisions when you are ill, how about "adopting my children", "inheriting my property (and debts)", or "becoming my common-law spouse after 6 month's co-habitation", or "perhaps not in my church but ok in another one", etc?

After a certain point you either have to draw a line, ie "sorry, you can have this much dignity and no more", or you eventually accept the strong form of gay marriage. Anything else would be politically unstable. You can, politically, rule out polygamy and define marriage as "two people". It doesn't have to lead to chaos and anarchy.

Corporations are now legal people, with all the rights that come with that status.

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but they don't. They lack the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, among some others.

Where are you getting 10+% from?

For a long time homosexuals liked to claim that at least 10% of the population is homosexual. That is what I suspect you are quoting. However that claim doesn't have good support. But figures that I have seen peg the rate of people who are primarily homosexual much lower than that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Demographics for some random figures. From that list the number I would quote for the USA is 4%.

However if you look at it differently, much more than 10% of the population cares. According to polls almost half the electorate thinks that gays should be allowed to marry. And a lot of non-homosexuals agree that the issue is important. So supporters of gay marriage aren't limited to gays.

My personal feeling is that consenting adults should be allowed to enter into any consensual arrangement that they wish. Therefore I am fully in support of allowing both gay marriage and polygamy, even though I have no desire to engage in either lifestyle. I should be clear on this. My position on polygamy doesn't come from my position gay marriage. They both come from more fundamental beliefs. But I suspect that as more people become familiar with the idea of polygamy as they have with the idea of gay marriage, that there will be a growing acceptance of it. And as an example of this I'd offer the changing opinions in Canada. First gay marriage became accepted, and now polygamy is becoming accepted.

So while logically polygamy doesn't flow from gay marriage, I think that the opponents of gay marriage are correct that acceptance of gay marriage is a step towards the likely future acceptance of polygamy.

I am straight, but I would be pissed of at discrimination of homosexuals.

10+% is my horseback guess for how many people really care, not the % of gay people. If it were larger the argument would be over already, I think.

Marriage goes far beyond a contract or power of attorney; for example, spouses have Fifth amendment protection. As you said it depends on where people finally agree to move the line to. I personally suspect that a "strong formulation" of gay marriage would be the most stable.

Denying one group rights because you fear what some other group might want is dishonest even if the premise is true. Giving former slaves rights made society more likely to give women those same rights, and all the same crap arguments were used then, too.

All of that is academic anyway. Rights are not given, they are demanded. Once polygamists constitute a significant constituency they can fend for themselves. Otherwise, leave 'em out of the equation.

What is so inflammatory about a claim that it would lead to polygamy? "Traditional" marriage definition is a reproductive (baring health issues) couple. If you decide that isn't a consideration, then what difference does it make if you allow more than 2 people to be "married"? I am really struggling with trying to understand in the long term would lead to "chaos and anarchy".

I just wish the State would use another term and leave the term "marriage" to the churches. If some/any church wants to "bless" your social union as a marriage, then cool. I am kinda on the conservative side, but if someone else wants to have a "triple" union - I don't really care as long as it isn't some genetic travesty (siblings / cousins).

"Traditional" marriage definition is a reproductive (baring health issues) couple

IOW, it's not simply about reproduction. I'll reconsider taking that claim seriously when its proponents suggest that sterility should be a diqualification for marriage licenses (for extra credit, they can call for revoking marriage in cases where sterility sets in afterwards). Until then, I can only conclude that reproduction is an excuse to distract from their real reason.

Should I have said "historical"? I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. What exactly do you think the origin of marriage is or for that matter religions focus on marriage if not on reproduction (be fruitful and multiply)?

I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here.

I recognize that what you posted was not necessarily your idea on the subject, hence "its proponents," rather than "you."

Marriage in some form is probably well over 10,000 years old. Homosexual marriage is also probably just as old relatively speaking. The institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, and is part of Code of Hammurabi 1790 BC etc, so tracing its origins is basically impossible. Also, if you include animals that mate for life (some of which are homosexual bonds) it is probably millions of years old.

The real issue IMO is how religious institutions portray history. When one of your sacred "Just So" stories portrays the creation of the institution of marriage it's easy to think of anything else as a perversion sacred law, even if such things are far older than your faith. EX: I once had someone defend their faith by saying “How else do you explain Adam’s missing rib?” That’s a world view so intermixed with their faith there is no way they can understand a secular viewpoint.

>Claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality is inflammatory.

What argument would you use to defend gay marriage that would not also allow polygamy? Or what argument would you make against polygamy that wouldn't also apply to gay marriage?

My argument would be amoral but straightforward: a politically-significant % of people want gay marriage, and make a strong case for it. You could reasonably implement it as "two persons" and go home. The % of people seriously agitating for polygamy is much lower so you can safely ignore them.

May I add, this is one of the most precise uses of the word "amoral" that I have ever read.

So if there were fewer gays (say, # of gays = # of polygamous mormons - 1), you would oppose gay marriage?

Nope. I don't oppose it at all. Rights are demanded, not granted. Given the situation we have now, granting "two person" marriages at the expense of higher numbers would satisfy the most people with the least amount of upheaval. If and when polygamists are numerous and organized enough to make a strong case for themselves, then we can talk about it. That's how politics really works.

Really? Because previously, you argued that because the number of people advocating for polygamy was lower, you therefore did not support polygamy. I guess that was just a fake argument?

So I'll repeat the question: can you state your real argument in favor of gay marriage?

Note: I'm asking why you favor it, not why you feel it is politically feasible.

His original post focused on the political aspect of it. The political aspect is what decides whether gays can marry, and a population's overall opinion on a mater influences political policy. Thus, his personal opinion is totally irrelevant to the point he was making.

Why are you trying to bring his personal opinions into play?

Actually, I realize we are both talking past each other.

Sp332 and myself want to hear an argument for gay marriage which does not logically lead to legalized polygamy. Aristus is arguing that gay marriage will not politically lead to legalized polygamy.

Out of curiosity, what is an argument for straight marriage which doesn't logically lead to polygamy?

Most arguments around either reproduction or tradition don't logically lead to polygamy. One such argument (which is not my opinion):

"Marriage is an institution with the primary purpose of providing a good environment for children and their biological parents. We only permit sterile straight couples to get married to promote the illusion that marriage is about love and happiness for the married couple. Since a polygamous household is not a good environment for children, we ban polygamy."

We only permit sterile straight couples to get married to promote the illusion that marriage is about love and happiness for the married couple.

Continuing in the tradition of stating opinions that are not ours but are potentially interesting:

One could argue that at the time these laws were made, checking for sterility was impossible and is now potentially prohibitive or inaccurate as medical science improves.

One could also argue that preventing people from participating in societal institutions for medical reasons is immoral. Another application of this idea is the belief that it is wrong to deny insurance to people who are already sick. (Again, not my opinion, but an extension of a common idea.)

Good is a not an objective reality in this situation. The quoted argument means that if I find or create a quote saying that polygamy or gay marriage is good for children, then it's equally legitimate and logical. Logically, marriage leads to divorce, which is commonly considered bad for children! My point is, logic relies on facts, and I don't think any camps have reached objective consensus on those.

Nearly all arguments about policy are based on subjective values, and those values are not shared by all. There is absolutely no set of facts which can prove "gay sex is morally wrong" or "gay sex is morally acceptable".

The most one can do is show that some more generally accepted subjective value implies the a specific subjective value. A more general argument: "any act performed in private between consenting adults is morally acceptable. This implies gay sex is OK."

(That's also a specific example of a general argument which most proponents don't actually believe. See this comment thread for an example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=806581 )

I'll repeat what I wrote to another statement on this thread: Ultimately, allowed marriages are a proxy for what society at large deems "reasonable." That's why this is such an issue, and I think that most arguments otherwise, on both sides, are disingenuous.

1) The founding fathers thought rights were recognized, not granted, by humans. They were granted by God. If you think humans grant them, you must think they can take them away, and it's just a matter of who is strongest.

2) State-recognized marriage is not a right. Like copyright, it is the granting of certain privileges, at the expense of the state, with the expectation that the state will benefit. You have a human right to write books and songs, and you have a human right to choose a partner. Separately, the state may have laws to encourage those things. A law recognizing gay marriage is not saying "you're equal with everyone, you can drink from the same water fountains." It's saying "we encourage gay marriage. We want to incentivize it." What is the case for that? Seems like it should be a sociological, economic one.

1) More or less, yep. Even those "natural rights" had to be demanded and paid for in blood. I'm talking about how the world has worked so far, not how I think it should be. It's useful to pretend otherwise most of the time, but when shit goes down you can't afford that luxury.

2) Yep. In this case I mean rights as in "water rights" as opposed to higher-order natural rights. Pragmatic reasons to encourage gay marriage are largely the same as for regular ones: married people live longer and are generally more happy. Stable households mean stable communities. Sensible distribution of estates. More homes willing and able to adopt the millions of kids who need them. Etc. Procreation is not the entire or even the most important reason to encourage households.

Unfortunately those arguments don't hold water with people who think being gay is immoral in and of itself.

Gay marriage does not benefit the state. Marriage between a man and woman benefits the state in that a marriage is a structure designed to provide for the safe procreation & rearing of children. Gays, by definition, don't procreate.

Any society that accepts and encourages gay marriages is committing suicide.

Given the number of cultures in the world that still practice polygamy, and how historically some cultures in the US did as well, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of "closeted polygamists" started popping out of the woodwork if polygamy were legalized along with same-sex marriage.

I'd also question whether "people seriously agitating" is a good way of determining whether a particular action is right or necessary, as it's the lack of agitation caused by fear that allows discrimination (against any small minority: geeks/nerds, races, genders, etc.) to exist for such a long time before finally being addressed.

> Given the number of cultures in the world that still practice polygamy, and how historically some cultures in the US did as well, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of "closeted polygamists" started popping out of the woodwork if polygamy were legalized along with same-sex marriage.

Polygamist have basically the same rights as gay people: They can't marry (in most countries), but nobody forbids you from screwing around (or even loving) multiple partners.

Marriage confers legal and economical benefits to the parties involved such as citizenship and tax benefits. Assuming society wants to keep providing these benefits, but still control them, allowing polygamy would make that job harder. And then you could imagine that a cost-benefit analysis of that would show that it's not worth it, i.e. it's cheaper to ignore the people wanting it than having to deal with the possible fraud.

I prefer: it's cheaper to ignore marriage than have to deal with possible fraud. Legally marriage was important because it conferred rights to spouses (mainly wives) that they otherwise wouldn't have had. Now that everyone at least nominally has the same rights, what's the point?

I'm completely in favor of gay marriage because it merely removes unreasonable restrictions on an institution.

Reasonable restrictions on marriage include being under age and certain close relations.

Polygamy isn't a relaxation of a restriction of marriage, it is expanding the concept. For example, if I am in a coma, my wife can make medical decisions for me. If I have two wives, what if they disagree? If two people are married, must they both agree on bringing a third into the marriage? What if one person from a three person marriage wishes to leave?

None of these questions arise with gay marriage. The closest gay marriage comes to these problems is that it exposes the inherent sexism in child custody issues, since with two men there's not a mother involved who the court can presume is the better parent.

As a libertarian, in theory I favor getting the state out of the marriage business, but in practice, marriage is a useful bundle of rights and responsibilities. That is, it's a standard contract between two people. We should make it possible for larger groups to enter into agreements granting the kinds of rights that marriage grants, but there is nothing discriminatory about saying that the state provides a standard simple contract for two-person marriage but if you want more than that, you'll have to see your lawyer.

I'd only posit that expansion occurs because of the relaxation of a restriction. What if you don't want your single wife to make that decision for you? What if you have 3 wives? I think that barring scientific evidence of the harm to 3rd parties (inbred children), govt should let consenting adults create the family they want. But that leaves the door open for sterilized cousins and siblings, and bars some current hetero marriages. Ultimately allowed marriages are a proxy for what society at large deems "reasonable." That's why this is such an issue, and I think that most arguments otherwise, on both sides, are disingenuous.

Great point. Marriage will probably remain as an cultural artifact and that's about it. If marriage means everything then it means nothing-- people just won't bother getting married. Europe is already ahead of us in this respect. It's been a long time coming, from no-fault divorce to a culture where personal happiness is the only standard by which we make decisions.

Yep. To put it another way, take the question "to whom should X be married?" If the answer is "it's 100% personal preference - no choice is better than another" - then the state shouldn't get involved. We don't pass laws encouraging you to wear blue instead of green, because it's just a matter of preference. So if your marriage choices don't matter to anyone, why should society bother recognizing and investing in them?

MARRIAGE may be a pointless cultural artifact, but the legal benefits they endow are certainly not pointless. I'm not gonna skip out on tax breaks and shared ownership and various other rights with someone I intend to spend my life with, just because I'm too lazy.

Though, if there was (as I envision it) a state-based 'civil union' that conveyed those benefits, and also 'marriage' which was purely church-based and conveyed no benefits legally (though of course those getting married would also file for a 'civil union') I might skip out on the church part.

>> "and - gasp! - judge some unions better than others?"

That just isn't doable in this age of "Everyone is equal" political correctness stupidity.

It'd be like saying that black people on average are better at basketball than white people! Which is clearly racist!!!

I don't think you'd run into someone who is upset at you from a personal standpoint if you were to claim that there were more black players than white players in the NBA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com