Hacker News Reader

It may be a 'marriage' as you like to define the word, but that doesn't magically make it so.

Shall we use 'marriage' to also cover the union of a man to a horse? man to a table? man to a child? They have civil rights too!

View on HN

I've seen many things described as a marriage. Like special diplomatic relations between countries, business mergers, even product announcements. And I think that people can understand this. Once again, try to describe civil partnerships to somebody. What are you going to do? Say 'It's like a marriage, just don't call it so, because I don't like it'

(In the same way, I'd even describe your reason as 'religious, just there are no gods and churches and other deities involved'. We are also used to call fanboy disputes between the text editors or operating systems as religious wars. And it's a very good description.)

>> "(In the same way, I'd even describe your reason as 'religious, just there are no gods and churches and other deities involved'"

I'd be happy calling my argument 'historical'. I don't like changing things that have served us well for centuries.

That's exclusive, not inclusive 'us', I believe. This thing isn't serving me well. In fact, it is serving me very badly (gay marriage isn't going to improve that very much, though any remedy is welcome).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com