Comment by jetsnoc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jetsnoc | Hacker News Reader

Thank you for sharing this article and thank you for being an ally. Seeing fellow intellects and hackers show compassion and concern for my situation makes me smile and it gives me hope!

You're absolutely right, no matter your beliefs or belief system this comes down to basic civil rights. My inability to put my partner on my companies insurance while many other married couples at my office legally can is simply discrimination.

My inability to express my love through marriage is discrimination and denies me my basic constitutional rights.

Frankly the economic burden is hurting a lot of families as well. Filing as Single 1 and inadequate insurance puts us gays at an unfair economic disadvantage.

We need a revolution of belief systems based on love and compassion. I try to help this revolution every day by being out at work and by being as normal as possible to the persons I work with, meet, or talk to in the community.

Perhaps detracactors will realize there is nothing to fear and that my family is normal just like theirs. Many would probably just call me a dreamer though-- I am in RURAL Southern Idaho where I really ought fear for my life more than worry about insurance and taxation... maybe it's time for this geek to move to a more gay friendly city.

My inability to express my love through marriage is discrimination and denies me my basic constitutional rights.

But that isn't true. Any people can hold any ceremony they want and call themselves anything they want. Find a friendly priest, invite your family and friends to a beach in Maui, hold the ceremony, change your surname, job's a good 'un. Seriously. You can do this. Any gay couple can. The government will not stop you, which is all the Constitution guarantees anyway.

But what you're really referring to is expressing your love through tax breaks and special immigration status. Historically the State offered these perks because it wanted to make it easier for people to make new citizens not because it thought marriage was inherently good. There's a case for heterosexuals who don't intend to have kids not getting these perks either...

You seriously don't get it. This isn't about the actual ability to marry; it's about the symbolic message it sends.

There _is_ a difference between being gay and straight and this is just one of the many, many ways we're exposed to it. It's just the most poignant one and in many ways it's just low hanging fruit.

This is quite similar to the Civil Rights Movement. Nobody in their right mind would claim that African Americans are getting the same chances today, on average, that Caucasians are getting; but none the less changing the laws meant a great deal.

The same goes for same sex marriages; and we're generally OK with that. At least I am OK with having to struggle for decades and probably centuries before my sexuality is accepted, but it's important to have a feeling of progress, and symbolically speaking the most important step is legalizing gay marriage...

>> "it's about the symbolic message it sends."

eg trying to convince society that you're right and they're wrong.

Why waste so much time trying to convince people that don't agree with you, and likely never will.

Why do you need everyone to accept your sexuality? Why care? As long as the people you care about are fine with it, why does it matter?

Legalizing gay marriage won't make a blind bit of difference to peoples attitudes and beliefs. In fact, it'll probably make them hold their position even more strongly.

Making discrimination according to race illegal won't make a bit of difference in peoples attitudes and beliefs. It'll probably make them hold their position even more strongly...

The side of a debate that has the power of the state behind it is at a distinct advantage.

But I do get it. Marriage means different things to different institutions. To the couple themselves, it's about love. For the Church, it's about God's will. For the government, it's about a steady supply of new citizens. For most of history - perhaps even still - a single woman with a young child is not a viable economic unit. A couple is.

The third point is the one that's being contended here. All the legal aspects of marriage - tax, immigration, inheritance, etc - were put in place by the government in support of the government's interest in marriage. If there are no kids involved, it's not at all clear why the government should offer the perks.

As for the other points, the first I have already addressed and the second is only relevant if you really want to get married in a church, and like I say, you can hold the ceremony on a beach if you want to.

"This isn't about the actual ability to marry; it's about the symbolic message it sends."

You're conceding too much. Of course this is about the actual ability for gay people to marry.

This is not only about the ability for gay people to get married -- it's about the ability of gay people to marry, to adopt children, to file taxes jointly, to visit each other in the hospital when sick, take medical power of attorney, and all of the hundreds of other benefits that straight couples take for granted. The US Constitution doesn't guarantee any of those benefits to straight people, either. The "it's not in the US Constitution" argument against equal marriage rights is so transparently specious that no self-respecting high school debater would bother making it. Same goes for the argument that "any people can hold any ceremony they want". The name of the institution isn't what's important; the societal benefits of the institution are what's important.

The parent can wax poetic on his theories for why the state makes marriage a legal institution, and whether they should do so, but it doesn't matter a bit. At the end of the day, marriage is a legal structure, that fact isn't changing, and the argument remains that there's no compelling reason that homosexuals shouldn't expect the same legal protections offered to straight couples.

>Nobody in their right mind would claim that African Americans are getting the same chances today, on average, that Caucasians are getting; but none the less changing the laws meant a great deal.

What do you mean by this?

How about you're dying in the hospital, and your gay partner is denied seeing you because it's 'family only' and the family nor the hospital want to make an exception?

> express my love through marriage

You can express your love through marriage: marry a woman. "Homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron.

To the extent heterosexual marriage gets special legal benefits over other partnerships, I'm in favor of equalizing all that. But gays can't "marry" any more than two elderly widowed sisters living together can marry. It's not the same thing.

Your choice of phrase "express my love through marriage" gets right down to the heart of it. Marriage is not for an expression of love. It is a social institution of special standing. It is for creating the next generation. It is not for "expressing love" or "finding happiness."

I can't express my love through marriage TO A WOMAN because it is not physically or emotionally possible for me to love a woman. This is not equality it's saying "seperate .. but equal." This creates too much room for legal ambiguity.

You may think it is a "choice" but it simply is not.

This should be simple for you to understand since you didn't choose your gender attraction either.

Science agrees. It has been scientifically proven that the brain and the hypothalamus is gendered within the first trimester of a pregnancy and that the gendered brain may not match the body's gender due to androstendione, a stress hormone similar to testosterone that binds to receptors that testosterone should have bound to creating a female hypothalamus in a male body, creating a third gender class - males, females and homosexuals.

Why did God give me a larger hypothalamus? Why did God create me as a gay male? Why does man continue to persecute a minority gender class God created?

Of course I don't expect you to have the capacity to question the legitimacy of your prejudices; A quick read of your other comments on HN showed me that you're also racist..

Voted you down for the last sentence, which ruined an otherwise measured and reasonable response.

Yet is also true.

There is a time and a place for ad hominem arguments, but this is not it.

>> "A quick read of your other comments on HN showed me that your also racist.."

Yeah that's won the argument. Why not label people as communist or socialist next?

No one is really persecuting you. Paying a bit extra tax/insurance is hardly in the same category as what Turing had to endure with chemical castration etc.

Life is about discrimination. I'm discriminated against because I didn't go to a posh school. Because I'm not a woman. Because I wear glasses. Because I'm not big+muscular. Because I don't know any famous people.

Retirement age is 5 years older for men than it is for women. Men die earlier than women.

Either you can whine about it, or you can get on and enjoy life. Life is far too short to spend it trying to change the minds of people who don't want their minds changed.

Having said that, I have no clue why this is on hacker news. Flagged.

Just my 2c, YMMV

> Paying a bit extra tax/insurance is hardly in the same category as what Turing had to endure with chemical castration etc.

That there exist other people who are worse off than you doesn't mean that you're treated fairly, or that you shouldn't try to do something about it.

> I'm discriminated against because I didn't go to a posh school. Because I'm not a woman. Because I wear glasses. Because I'm not big+muscular. Because I don't know any famous people.

You can change some things about you: work out, wear contact lenses, etc. You can't change your sex (or you probably wouldn't want to), so you can try to change your environment. This is the situation he's in.

He's right, but probably not for the reason he thinks he is. There is no reason the church should be forced to marry homosexuals if that is not part of its religious theory; the church is a private institution and can do as it pleases. Likewise, however, there is no reason that the state should codify "marriage" under the law, homosexual or otherwise. The proper state of affairs is fully-legally-robust civil unions for all, with some backed religiously, and some not. Trying to make the church recognize gays in order to get them rights under the state is just the absolutely wrong order to do things.

And I apologize in advance for my continuation to this inanity, because this entire thread is so completely the opposite of Hacker News.

The state makes a distinction between 'marriage' and 'civil union' right now, I don't think that the gay movement would be too upset to be equal before the law and let the archaic church sort out if it wants to move in to the 21st century or become irrelevant at some point.

Flagged the thread btw, this is getting out of hand.

I am explaining to you that you are trying to call a steak a cake. The biological nature of your preference is irrelevant.

You want to redefine marriage, but by the current definition there is no inequality. You are as free to marry as anyone else.

Your desired redefinition is stupid for two reasons: 1) The obvious biological and social dynamics of heterosexual reproduction. 2) The entire first world has shared a common definition of marriage whereas those places with weirder norms are all shit holes. It's a proven institution and fucking with it is a dangerous slippery slope. This is not about mean religious crazies who want to make you sad. There's a lot more at stake when you go tinkering with this stuff.

"The law, in its majestic impartiality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges of Paris"

I hope you just wanted to turn a phrase and can actually see how facile that is.

And that (this entire thread) is why we try to keep politics and such off Hacker News.

I think you need to distinguish between the religious/cultural definition of marriage, and the legal definition.

I agree that we can't force priests to marry in the name of their God, because that's a matter of faith. That decision should be made by each individual church.

But it is also not fair to impose our cultural definitions on others when it comes to legal status. It seems strange that we give non-christian marriages the same status, while homosexuals in the same situation are treated differently.

It is also false that the definition of a marriage is the same in the "first world". Other countries have managed to separate the religious definition of marriage from the legal definition.

I'm not gay, and I have to admit that I look another way when two men kiss. But that doesn't mean I don't respect their situation, and want to give them the same rights as myself.

>Science agrees. It has been scientifically proven that the brain and the hypothalamus is gendered within the first trimester of a pregnancy and that the gendered brain may not match the body's gender due to androstendione, a stress hormone similar to testosterone that binds to receptors that testosterone should have bound to creating a female hypothalamus in a male body, creating a third gender class - males, females and homosexuals.

I believe this has been discredited long ago. Some googling finds

"Although clear sex differences were evident, Swaab, Gooren and Hofman (1992) found no differences in the size of the SDN of the preoptic anterior hypothalamus between "gay" and "heterosexual" men, contrary to what the androgen underexposure theory predicts. Dorner's (1988) contention that "gay" men have a female hypothalamus was not upheld."

http://books.google.com/books?id=PzDKr-qCdTAC&pg=PA127

The article referenced is

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0...

Why does the fact that he has an opposing view on a given subject make him prejudiced? Is it not possible for someone to hold an opposing view on a subject such as Gay Marriage (or God, or whatever) yet still be perfectly fine with Gay people (or God-loving folk, or whatever)?

I have a feeling this comment will not go over well with the community here, so I am going to attempt to get a more descriptive response.

Your response states that by definition, marriage requires opposing sexes. You can't 'marry' someone of the same sex by definition. That's a legal definition. A social definition could be different, and I think the issue stems from the fact that the social definition and the legal definition are conflicting.

Please explain how you define what marriage should be, and your justification for that definition.

Okay, I'll take your challenge.

Social Definition should be: A Union between a Man and a Woman.

Justification: Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His Eternal Plan. (Source: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html)

Now, that is my view, based on careful study and thoughtful inquiry and seeking after truth. I recognize that others may not understand this the same way. I value their individual perspectives and respect and love them still the same.

I also recognize that there is a difference between Eternal Marriage covenants and earthly contracts which have no sway in the eternities.

Therefore when it comes to the discussion of legal matters, we must look deeper into what benefits legal recognition of marriage has to society. I put forth that civil marriage is based on the importance of gender as an aspect of ones identity and personal attributes and that a union between a man and a woman allows for great synergy and creates the appropriate corner stone for families- and the raising of children. The synergy between male and female is essential to the benefit of marriage to society and the appropriate rearing of children.

I love and respect those who are attracted to the same sex, and I support their legal right to choose their own lifestyle. However, I cannot support a change in the legal structure of the family to cater to their individual tastes and desires, nor can I personally condone action that is inconsistent with the commandments of the Almighty God of Israel.

You are looking at this through a very American lens.

There are plenty of countries in the world where gays can marry:

- Netherlands (one of the few things we did right, historically)

- Belgium

- Spain

- Canada

- South Africa

- Norway

- Sweden

Coming soon:

- Nepal

(from the wikipedia article).

So, Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron only in those places that don't allow it, and in those places that do allow it there have been no major outbreaks of anything to date, so stop being so afraid, live and let live.

Being able to marry the one you love is an essential part of the freedoms that should be accorded all human beings, including those that love others of the same sex as their own.

No, they simply redefined "marriage" to suit the political climate.

> Being able to marry the one you love is an essential part

> of the freedoms that should be accorded all human beings,

> including those that love others of the same sex as their

> own.

Marriage means what it traditionally means. Redefining it to mean a generic "love" would also mean that kingkongrevenge's example of two elderly sisters could marry, or a mother can marry her son, or a man can marry his horse (provided the horse neighs in consent).

Redefining the word "marriage" to meet the whims of a minority doesn't actually change what a true marriage is.

So, how do you think we got to those traditions in the first place ?

Traditions change over time, the time for change has come, since we are now societally at a level advanced enough to recognize that when we say that everybody is equal before the law we actually should mean it.

Two elderly sisters marrying is fine with me, it doesn't bother me in the least what two elderly sisters are up to.

A mother marrying her son has connotations that society will probably never be comfortable with, even though in some countries it actually is legal.

A man marrying his horse is a funny example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage

But personally I'd probably limit it to transactions between consenting humans.

My personal opinion on all this is that consenting people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does not directly harm others.

Mental harm because they 'degrade' what you can do by doing it too does not count.

Nothing to say here, except that fortunately most people still know the difference between right and wrong and will never accept as normal the disgusting proposals above. I suspect most people deep down do not want such a society full of moral relativism.

By the same logic, universal suffrage is an unfortunate political compromise to meet the whims of minorities, and the "true" right to vote belongs to upper-class men only, as established by the traditional definition of democracy.

How about instead of ignorantly spouting that line of BS you realize that throughout most of history and civilizations marriage has been mostly about business, family relations, and politics?

Marriage is a legal status. The meaning behind it is irrelevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com