[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: this has been a problem for a long time:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35417006 (April 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30592985 (March 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13086020 (Dec 2016)
... and it looks like you've been doing it quite a bit recently, on various topics. We need this to stop. I don't want to ban you, you've been around for a long time and posted many good things, but you can't do this kind of flamewar on HN, so please stop. If you want to conduct provocations, there are other places on the internet to do that.
1. Rhetorical. They _want_ to be _married_.
2. In many places in the world, a "domestic partnership" is not recognized by everyone and requires quite a bit more legal paperwork (and associated fees) than a simple marriage license and filing. (In the US, typically $2000-$20,000+ vs $20).
3. A simple demand for recognition. By being _married_, there is a legal recognition that a "domestic partnership" lacks.
Alternatively, why does the state not abandon the idea of "marriage" altogether and only recognize domestic partnership?
The problem with "civil union" is not the core idea of it, which is sound, but that it is fruit from a poisonous tree. The construct exists for the purpose of discrimination. It doesn't make sense without the desire to discriminate. "Civil Union" exists explicitly to mean "marriage, but lesser."
The dig at Christianity is odd. Of the 36 countries around the world that recognize same-sex marriage, only one (Taiwan) is non-Christian. And there it was adopted by court order, not legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage. In fact, every single country, besides Taiwan, to accept same-sex marriage is either populated by European Christians, or was colonized and dominated by them (in Latin America, and South Africa).
None of the officially atheist countries recognize same-sex marriage. Of the former Soviet bloc countries that practiced state atheism, the only one that recognizes same sex marriage is Estonia, which was historically one of the few Protestant (Lutheran) countries in Eastern Europe.
That’s not a coincidence. Acceptance of same-sex marriage arises directly out of Christian ideas about man being made in the image of God and in particular Protestant ideas about individualized morality.
Historically, Japan’s view of marriage was strongly shaped by Chinese Confucianism, in which the focus of marriage is not the two individuals, but on the families being united through the marriage and the production of children that are related to both families.
It’s not just “secularism”—the absence of belief in God or absence of organized religion. Japan and China are extremely secular countries, more so than anywhere in Europe. The notable thing about the Netherlands seems to be not that they’re secular, but that they also were a hotbed of the Protestant reformation. Until the 20th century, the majority of the Dutch population was Calvinist. A few years after the Netherlands legalized same sex marriage—and long before most of the rest of Europe did so—Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same sex marriage. Massachusetts was founded by fundamentalist Calvinists (the Puritans). Even though American Calvinists and European Calvinists split (geographically) 300-400 years ago, their version of “secularism” evolved in a very similar direction, and quite differently than the “secularism” of Asian countries. It’s really hard to say that’s just a coincidence.
Many protestant sects have become accepting of homosexuality and even the pope is begrudgingly moving Catholicism away from uncivilized dogma.
Luther's reformation was ultimately about speaking truth to power. So I agree that there is a protestant disposition towards this type of thing or something in the protestant culture which is not as rotten as religions like orthodoxy or Islam. The idea of protestant work ethic, the golden rule, and similar artifacts probably played a very large part in the west out competing and out innovating the east.
However while I think there is an element of western culture that venerates speaking truth to power (and everything that implies, like there is a basis for finding truth), I don't think that is the christian element. If anything I think Socratic tradition is probably the root of western "enlightened" policies.
That being said, I am American and come from an American perspective. In America it is fundamentalist Christians who have largely opposed same sex marriage, even protestant cultures, my culture, were generally against homosexuality. For multiple elections it was a core wedge issue harped on like abortion. Some proponents of gay marriage are christian, but all opponents of gay marriage are christian (or Muslim, or some other fundamentalist or foreign group) and are against homosexuality because of their Christianity.
Fundamentalist is probably a better term.
After it became uncool to hate on homosexual people, there was a primarily christian shift to persecute transsexual people because they were weaker and less able to wield political power. I haven't seen the christian love movement pointed at trans people, that is for sure.
I read a pretty good quote about how the idea of separation between church and state was to protect the state from the church, but what are witnessing in real time is the state corrupting the church. These obviously non christian ideas of hate have somehow become the christian zeitgeist. The more christian someone feels, the more hate and lack of empathy for others they seem to have. Turn the other cheek isn't exactly republican dogma. Trump isn't exactly Christ like. I say this not as an outside judge. I say this having been raised Christian.
> The dig at Christianity is odd.
It is not a dig at Christianity. It is pointing out that the church wants to own the term spiritually and civic-ly. In other-words they want religious institutions that they have control over codified into law, and special privileges granted by the state over their codified religious institution. Separating the spiritual concept from the legal concept requires either the church give up the word marriage or the state give up the word marriage.
> state atheism
I am not sure I buy this idea of state atheism as presented. State atheism is forced. Western atheism is chosen. I think there is a world of difference, one has it's philosophical basis in reason, the other in dominance. Religion is dominance focused, you don't need to listen to much christian rock to hear how important submission to Jesus is, whatever that means. I also think the notion of state atheism in a palce like china is complicated. China cathol-isized bhuddism (meaning gutting the spiritual moral core and replacing it with indulgences and extravagance and other bankrupt practices while co-opting it as a tool of state power), while also seeing religion as a competitive force to state and as a colonial tool used by foreign powers.
You’re just observing that American politics occurs between Christians (or at least people who were raised Christian). Internationally, acceptance of homosexuality, especially homosexual marriage, is a distinctive feature of countries that have a thousand plus years of Christian history.
In the US, there is a sharp distinction between what foreign groups accept as to laws they perceive as governing “Americans,” and what they accept in their own communities. My extended family is from a Muslim country, but are college educated and highly secular. My dad rants about religion being the opiate of the masses and stuff like that. But it would be completely unthinkable for anyone in our community to come out as gay. As far as I can tell, the same is true of south Asian communities from a Hindu background, even though the religious tradition is completely different. There is something distinctive about Christian and secularism evolved from a foundation of Christianity.
> I am not sure I buy this idea of state atheism as presented. State atheism is forced. Western atheism is chosen. I think there is a world of difference, one has it's philosophical basis in reason, the other in dominance.
The Chinese are hyper-rational. That’s how they managed to revolutionize the living standard of their people in such a short time. The difference between Chinese atheism and western atheism is that the latter clings to the notion of individuals having inherent dignity and rights. That’s not a notion rooted in “reason.” That’s not an evidence-based idea rooted in biological reality. That’s a metaphysical assumption that comes from the Christian view that each individual is created in God’s image. Christian societies spent a thousand years developing all these ideas about the nature of the individual, based on Christianity. And they kept those underlying ideas even as they stopped overtly worshiping God.
You’re correct that Christianity posits submission to God. But the implication of that is that God is above the temporal government. That was, in fact, one of the big themes of the Protestant Reformation. In China, they never had that concept. When they had too many people, they just killed the extra babies that were born in violation of the one child policy. That was perfectly rational. If the experts decided that overpopulation was harmful to the whole society, and the baby was just a not-yet sentient meat organism, what was wrong about fixing the problem?
Because many Christians to varying degrees don't see marriage as a legal construct (whether exclusively, primarily, or at all, depending on the person), but as a religious one. "Civil Union" is the name that designates the legal construct, as the name implies.
> Alternatively, why does the state not abandon the idea of "marriage" altogether and only recognize domestic partnership?
I think this is something everyone could get on board with. It lets the religious sphere take back the "marriage" term while putting everyone on equal footing in the civil sphere.
...then we get to argue over what qualifies someone to be a husband/wife vs a partner!
Whatever they “see”, it is, in fact, a legal institution, has been such as long as it has existed at all, and is a legal institution that in most modern liberal democracies (and many other regimes) has been entirely separate, and regulated differently, from any religious institution of the same name for quite some time.
There's lots of institutions like that, because religion and civil law weren't historically separate domains, and many institutions (minority/adulthood, for one pair) exist which formerly were shared between the two and continue to frequently exist in both domains.
That doesn't give religions the right to impose their rules on the public institutions, or to demand the public institution change its name.
It's not quite so simple, though. In most countries without a state religion or with modern humanist foundations, they already recognize it as both.
Pedantic Catholics wouldn't recognize the religious validity of a marriage involving a divorced person blessed by a different church, but they don't challenge the legal validity.
Likewise, almost all Christians accept the legal validity of a marriage involving two hetersexual Muslims or atheists, even while rejecting that it carries the same religious validity as their own.
Most are totally accustomed to the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage and that requirements for such marriages vary. Their resistence to homosexual marriage has other roots.
A pedantic Catholic would note that the Church actually presumes the religious validity of non-Catholic marriages between people who are non-Catholics, even though such marriages would be invalid for a Catholic, and while the issue of prior divorce makes this a more difficult question, it only does so because it then requires a definitive resolution of the presumed validity of the former marriage.
This is not-infrequent source of complications if one of the partners, after divorce in the second marriage, seeks to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church, so its a fairly well-documented issue, if perhaps obscure to people who aren't pedantic Catholics.
I don't think you've met very many Republicans, certainly not the ones I'm related to or have interacted with.
People who have established a stable family unit that looks like a marriage in all ways ways besides the gender of its members naturally want access to those same rights, priveleges, protections, and services.
In most cases, because of a variety of official or de facto details, a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" is not functionally identical to a marriage as far as this goes and so generally doesn't make for a convincing compromise.
The purpose of marriage is for two people who are are committed to each other to gain that legal and social status. That may be important for rights of inheritance, citizenship, residency and numerous other rights.
The idea that marriage is intended for procreation is false and a claim made by those who discriminate against homosexuals.
If procreation is a key factor then it should be enforced equally: you lose your marriage right or are prosecuted for not procreating.
And of course for most people it's a show of love.
A good example is legally being considered a partner if the other is in a hospital. In pre-same-sex marriage there have been concrere situations where partnes have been denied seeing their significant other on their death bed.
In most countries, "marriage" is the legally protected definition of a civil union in the eyes of the government. As soon as there's meant to be a "same but different" construct, prejudice creeps into the enforcement because legally things being "different" is interpreted as allowing difference.
The idea of "civil unions" being different to "marriage" has been used to do things like deny medical authority to one partner because they believe they might successfully litigate it. The only reason to try and draw a distinction has been to try and insert a seam where prejudice can be re-injected[1].
[1] https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4726e827-5d5a-4...
Why the hell do people want to involve governments into their relationship? At what point of a loving relationship do you come to a need of a bureaucrat's stamp of approval? "Hey honey, I love you very much now, so can we get a stamp now, from the same guy that issues passports in the mornings?"
We could abolish (the government part of) marriage alltogether, and have unofficial parties, priests waving whatever and yelling "wololo wololo" if they want, or do whatever you want.. just not as an official formal procedure.
Businesses and corporations get registered, civil unions are registered for similar reasons - aside from any romance there may also be a financial arrangement that in some cases can be substantial; a few houses and copyright over written works, patents held etc. can add up.
The "rights that are gained" that you mention still have to be exercised, this becomes easier with clear registered documentation, a will, and an executor.
If it matters who you regard as a primary partner and there are assets at play, then things go smoother (but can still be a bun fight) with formal papers of union, dissolvement, another union, a will, etc.
I mean.. kids, i understand.. you get tax benefits for a kid here too, but in my country, marriage doesn't change any taxes.
They want to be treated as equals. Being limited to domestic partnerships is not equal, in a variety of ways.
>The definition and purpose of marriage is to do the least rewarding thing nowadays: procreate with all the headaches that come with it.
... gay people can procreate...
Edit: I'd encourage folk downvoting this to engage in conversation if they take issue with anything I've said. :)