Comment by esotericn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by esotericn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Never came up.

If you're after my personal opinion - I think that the whole debate about gay marriage gets muddled because there's basically this interplay between the state and religion.

So you end up in this weird place where - those who really believe in the religious aspects of marriage have to be against gay marriage because it's literally "against the rules", it doesn't compile.

But then in the real world, we have a state that confers benefits based on marriage - and even in places where civil partnerships are wholly equal in the law, you still have the weird 'status' style thing whereby they're sort of seen as being lesser.

To me it's almost completely a nomenclature thing. If we didn't have marriages or civil partnerships, and instead we asked whether two people (of arbitrary sex) should be allowed to cohabit and/or enter a contract with each other to share assets, I think it'd be way simpler.

I mean there'd still be the stalwart homophobes that just think it's capital-W Wrong or think that religiously they need to at least publically claim it as being wrong, but what I wrote up there I think is a big part of it.

The way I see it, the fight for gay marriage cannot be looked at without historical context. In many countries for a long time gay relationships were illegal. Punishable by jail or worse. Gay marriage is simply a step on a long road towards legalizing gay relationships. It doesn't matter what it would be called, historically gay people would not have been allowed to participate.

Marriage has, since time immemorial, always been a contractual relationship. What you described is exactly what marriage is, there's no need to come up with another word or term when a perfectly good one already exists.

"since time immemorial"

irrelevant. not all contracts are sanctioned or defined by the state. the problem is that christians see the state as sanctioning their religious institution, and now, perverting it. the solution is to have the state get out of the business of sanctioning it.

>the solution is to have the state get out of the business of sanctioning it.

Legality is tied to morality and morality is tied to religion (in those who believe in religion). You cannot separate them out in a society with high regard for religion. Even if you remove religion you still have the cultural views on morality which become tied to the state's laws.

Yes, true. Still...

The weird thing for me is why people feel this need for the state to legitimate the institution. If your church, and your family, recognize your union as a marriage, that's great. You've made a public pledge to the people that matter in your life.

And if your church and your family doesn't recognize my union as legitimate marriage, perhaps because my previous divorce wasn't legitimated by an authority you recognize, or because its a gay marriage, or an inter-racial one, why should I care? My marriage isn't for you, just as yours isn't for me.

But when its the state, well... then get pretty tricky very fast.

Christians say marriage is a religious institution, holy from time immemorial. My own view is that marriage has been many things in different times and places, but were I to grant Christians the point, the implication should clearly be: the separation between church and state clearly demands that the state stop sticking it nose into religion.

Legality has nothing to do with morality. What morality is there in saying that you cannot pass a vehicle in a tight lane? None. It's a safety concern. Morals only concern religion. Ethics concern right or wrong. Law concerns a group of defined social agreements between people within a defined region. While the basis of some of our laws has a history of Christian influence, our laws in and of themselves do not require morality. An atheist is no more likely to go on a murderous rampage than a Christian, ethically it would be wrong. That kind of timing is built into humanity as a whole because it's required for civilization and predates religion. You see it in animal species as well. Heck a dog sees the benefit in not murdering their master.

>Morals only concern religion.

Morality is much broader than religion. A non-religious culture would have a moral guideline based on it's view on what is wrong and right. Likewise a non-religious philosophies have systems of morality. Religion is one driver of a societies morality although there's some chicken and egg questions in there (ie: is religion merely parroting a cultures pre-existing moral views). Laws, as I see it, are mostly attempts to codify a societies morality so that it can be enforced centrally and systematically instead of piece meal and locally.

> What morality is there in saying that you cannot pass a vehicle in a tight lane?"

Any system of morality in which it's morally wrong to endanger the lives of other motorists is a system of morality in which a justification for traffic laws can be constructed.

(Also, I find your juxtaposition of atheism and morality very alien. I say that as an atheist with strong opinions on what is or is not moral.)

In an ideal world, sure. But it's silly to pretend that a marriage is not also full of religious meaning and significance to many.

> So you end up in this weird place where - those who really believe in the religious aspects of marriage have to be against gay marriage because it's literally "against the rules", it doesn't compile.

Huh? I think it's widely considered acceptable for a straight person to be against entering into a gay marriage themselves. Supporting government policy that prevents other people from doing so is a very different matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com