Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jacquesm

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.

View on HN

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