Hacker News Reader

Comment by mynameishere | Hacker News Reader

Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution

What a strange analogy. Evolution is a natural phenomena, while marriage is a state-regulated union. There is a set of reasons apart from tradition why legal marriage exists, and very little in that set would apply with any frequency to "gay marriage". The most obvious reason, of course, is that the division of labor between the sexes is inevitably derivative of the constraints created by pregnancy.

Brin doesn't really argue beyond this,

we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.

But this is an error. It's an easy error to make.

View on HN

"The most obvious reason, of course, is that the division of labor between the sexes is inevitably derivative of the constraints created by pregnancy."

You are claiming that this is the primary reason why we have state-regulated marriage? Two words: [citation needed].

The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions for which it provides structure, such as sexual gratification and regulation, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status, and companionship; perhaps its strongest function concerns procreation, the care of children and their education and socialization, and regulation of lines of descent.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/366152/marriage

That's about marriage, not state-regulated marriage. You are being intellectually dishonest.

The quote is about marriage as a social institution. States are known to regulate social institutions within their spheres of influence.

Nothing you've said amounts to anything near a citation for his claim.

Yeah, equality is such a fuzzy premise for an argument. I would have hoped for something more concrete from someone like Sergey.

UPDATE

@downvoter, if equality isn't a fuzzy premise, where is the line drawn between things that should and should not be equal?

For instance, why shouldn't everyone have an equal opportunity to participate in the Olympics? Why shouldn't everyone have an equal opportunity to be a CEO on Wall Street?

It's because they do not have the functionality that these positions require, as mynameishere pointed out regarding marriage. Claiming equality merely glosses over these important distinctions and does not bring any substance to the argument.

In general, I don't understand why they need to have a marriage anyways. Why not just get domestic partnerships granted at the federal level? They'd get much less flak.

The ideal solution is domestic partnerships at the federal level -- for ALL people, regardless of their combination of sex. However, the federal government is never going to relinquish the power of marriage. We're stuck with the state regulating a religious issue. Within this framework, the difference between domestic partnerships is mostly emotional. It is incredibly insulting to suggest that something "separate but equal" is a good solution. Beyond that emotional issue, it is unlikely that something intended to be different in name only would only be different in name only.

That ignores the fact the traditional societal supports for marriage are all based around the fact that it is a generative relationship. That is why more resources are devoted to it.

Sure, maybe same sex relationships can be artificially generative, but this is no where near the capability or likelihood to equal the basis for traditional marriage.

So, same sex relationships should not have the same benefits that are accrued by a generative relationship, since they do not require them and are thus just squandering resources.

Emotional issues are important, but they should not be the bottom line in a situation that clearly has a functional basis. However, the pro side seems to be mainly emotive in their driving arguments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com