Hacker News Reader

Comment by bolder88 | Hacker News Reader

The majority of people against redefining the word marriage to include same sex unions, aren't against it because they want to deny anyone any rights.

  Waitress - a woman who waits on people
  Marriage - The union of one man and one woman

Either both words are sexist and discriminatory, or neither is, or you do not accept the common meaning of the word 'marriage'.

As Stephen Fry said, give them all the same rights, just call it something else. "Civil Union" or something.

View on HN

In my opinion having marriage and civil union is worse than waiter and waitress. The former makes a civil union feel inferior - there is a weight to the word marriage. I also see no problem with changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples.

Are you suggesting Eich was dontating to stop the misuse of a word as opposed to stopping gay people having equality?

Why not change it to include interspecies marriage next? Man+sheep+frog. What about inanimate objects! A man and a lamp? May as well allow people to marry trees while we're at it.

I am suggesting that yes.

Because lamps, for example, cannot give consent and have no concept of a union/marriage/tax arrangement between two things. If you do not understand this then you should have no part in this conversation.

Likening gay marriage to interspecies marriage is demeaning and offensive. I would appreciate it if you would stop.

demeaning and offensive? Don't you think animals or other possible future species should have rights too? Shame on you.

"It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?" - Stephen Fry

I'm done here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com