Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

Lets change the facts a bit:

Mozilla has appointed as a CEO someone who not only doesn't support personal freedom, but who has actively contributed to the communist campaign against it...There are quite a number of developers and others, some of whom work at Mozilla, who are either currently or will consider in the future exercising freedoms that would be forbidden under communism...

Perfectly reasonable to campaign against this guy and those like him? Perhaps the Silicon Valley Reporter could publish a black list of communists and their supporters?

(I don't actually have a strong opinion on this issue. I used to think it obvious, but I realized my views were confused and inconsistent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 )

View on HN

Any person who seeks to enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons before the law should be condemned. Bring proof that a communist conspiracy attempted to do that, I'll happily condemn them for you.

Or were you hoping that would be a problem for me?

Any person who seeks to enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons before the law...

Like people who are risk loving and prefer to take their chances rather than buy health insurance? People who enjoy mobility more than home ownership? People who enjoy sex with animals more than sex with people?

All regulations enshrine in law the inequality of a subset of persons - specifically, the subset of people who would (absent the law) engage in the prohibited action. If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it. But the abstract principle you are appealing to probably proves far more than you want it to.

Criminal laws punish violators equally; criminal prohibitions are not an inequality.

By the way, I know concern trolling is your schtick, but it just doesn't work out so well.

If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it.

It's the other way around. It's gay marriage opponents who argue that heterosexuals couples are a special subset and deserve more rights than other couples.

Gay marriage opponents believe that the government can regulate and subsidize marriage just like anything else (e.g., wages, consumption of herbs, ownership of a home). I understand this view even if I don't share it - government can regulate anything, and whether gay marriage should be legal or illegal is just the result of a cost/benefit analysis.

It's the gay marriage proponents arguing that unlike medical devices or food preparation techniques, gay marriage is somehow beyond the purview of government to regulate. I'm asking about the principles underlying this strange exclusion.

I'm asking about the principles underlying this strange exclusion.

The principle is the Supreme Court's 1967 decision that marriage is a fundamental right.

I'm pretty sure that if you were to restrict gay marriage opponents to those that consider an issue of costs/benefits, the turnout in support of Prop.8 and similar legislative actions would be marginal. But feel free to show me wrong, my position is based mostly on personal observation and hearsay, not data.

By the way: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/econ...

No, they don't. That wouldn't even make sense, since (civil) marriage is regulation. What they object to is regulations that apply differently to people of different genders. You may disagree on the (ridiculous, in my opinion) basis that "gay people can still marry other people, just not each other", but claiming that you don't understand the principle is little more than trolling.

> If you want to argue that gays are a special subset who (unlike all the other subsets) deserve not to have regulations go against their preferences, do it.

You don't get to state this as fact just because it helps your argument. I assume you're well aware people on the other side consider sexual orientation to be inherent, rather than a simple preference.

Well, marriage is still a preference. I don't think the issue is about reintroducing sodomy laws or something like that.

I'm fine with this position if you're advocating to remove government recognition of all marriages and "civil unions" entirely.

I'm not advocating for anything in the previous post. People are too quick to judge. I was explaining why it could be considered a preference.

If you must know, I'm pro-gay marriage and against all civil marriage. And I have no position on the current issue.

Sorry, I honestly didn't intend to judge or even imply you were advocating that.

What I meant is that I agree marriage is a preference, but only if there are no additional benefits or rights bestowed (by the government) upon those entering the marriage.

I think it more likely than not that sexual preference is "inherent". I hold a similar view about risk preference, animal sex preference and mobility preference. To me, the concepts "simple preference" and "inherent" seem orthogonal, yet you seem to be implying they somehow conflict. Could you explain?

If it turns out that risk preference or mobility preference is also "inherent", would that make Obamacare or mortgage subsidies/know your customer laws a violation of civil rights?

Well, if the difference is a semantic issue between us, then I'm not sure I can explain it. I believe sexual orientation is inherent in the the same way height, sex, or skin color is - e.g. I cannot simply choose to be black or live a "tall" lifestyle. If you think "risk preference" is an inherent trait in that way, then of course the ACA is unjust. I would disagree, but could be convinced given evidence. FWIW, I don't necessarily believe the ACA or the mortgage subsidy are correct or just. I won't comment on KYC laws since I am not familiar with them.

As an aside: I don't think you're comparing homosexual relationships to bestiality, but you're getting close. I hope you understand why this could be offensive and non-productive in a conversation.

Please, there is no "Gay McCarthy"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com