Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you care if you have to sit in the back?

View on HN

Sorry, I have to write a second reply because it really makes me think: what would a possible moral stance against gay marriage even be? I can't imagine a reasonable moral argument against gay marriage? Unless you think homosexuals being together is immoral, but then marriage would be irrelevant (if that was somebody's opinion, they would probably fight on a lower level, like putting gays into jail or whatever, not prevent them from marrying)?

I'm not really well versed in the typical pro and contra arguments, so this made me curious.

The State has no business being involved in morality, so outlawing homosexual activity is outside the State's remit.

The moral argument against homosexual pseudomarriage is that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about marriage. Marriage is not about a couple's (or a group's) feelings about one another. It's not a way that society shows approval. It is, rather, the formation of the most basic unit _of_ society (I'd argue that the individual is not really a unit of society), and is the means by which children are produced and brought up.

(And yes, there's plenty of heterosexual pseudomarriage too)

But, given that these are all moral arguments, my preference is for the State to absent itself entirely rather for it to take a side and do further damage to an almost destroyed institution.

Its about building a family, which is more than one person. To call its purpose child-raising is silly; folks stay married after the kids are gone. A family can be a grandmother and a grandkid; a Mom and a child and a grandchild; three kids raising one another after the folks die in an accident; two Moms and three adopted kids (like my cousins are). Its arrogant and small-minded to reject any family that doesn't look like yours, and worse yet to try to legislate other families out of existence.

In fact, if marriage is 'almost destroyed' as you posit, then we need more, new styles of family if kids are to have a chance to grow up fed and clothed and loved enough.

Well married homosexuals get the right to adopt children (I assume). I don't think it's just a moral stance. Maybe some people really are convinced that having two dads is bad for children psychologically. They would probably be wrong, but it's not a question of morals (unless you dismiss the protection of children's wellbeing as a goal). I am not sure if science has really shown it's not bad for children. I personally don't think so, but I can't blame other people for thinking so.

How does adoption in general work? For example it can happen through "natural causes" that a child has only one dad and no mother. It seems likely that having two dads would be better than just one. But if somebody wants to adopt, they might have to be "better than average"? Like would a single dad have a good chance of adopting? Or does some office consider the likelihood of a child's wellbeing in a family - so presumably they would try to find two parents, not just one, which is discriminatory against singles? And then if the "adoption office" (or whoever is responsible) has the choice between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple, things become difficult?

All that is government meddling in someone else's affairs in the most egregious way possible. Its not as far as taking kids from single parents etc. because they don't fit someone's model of a perfect family, but nearly there.

My cousin has 4 kids, and is married to the love of her life Lisa. Their kids are certifiably the kindest, most considerate kids I know. There's been no psychological damage, at least not at their hands. Ignorant outsiders may say mean things but to blame that on these excellent parents would be twisted logic.

Anywho, the decision about adoption is so far down the road from marriage as to be a red herring.

Sure, that is what I said in another comment: if you argue homosexual couples are somehow unfit to raise children, you would also have to question other people's fitness.

But I think you are wrong about adoption. I think it's one of the main concerns opponents of gay marriage have. What other rights would people be concerned about? The other one I can think of is the right to bring your spouse into your country.

Are people going to the barricades because they don't want gays to be able to visit their partners in hospital? I rather doubt it. Adoption is one of the big issues.

Adoption rules are covered under different laws. Why not attack those rules, instead of marriage? It seems indirect. As you suggest, why not arrest, or execute, or lobotomize as well? Unmarried people can adopt - so what's the connection then?

I think, because the argument is thrown up semi-randomly - See! They might adopt! That would be awful! Just another red herring, saying anything at all that might convince a voter to strike down the right to marry.

Science has shown it's not bad for children: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx?item=11

People who continue to make this argument are ignoring a very well-established conclusion in the social science research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com