Comment by UntitledNo4 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by UntitledNo4 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not trying to convince you, I guess you are beyond that, but for other people who think "maybe this person has a point":

The issue for most homosexual couple is not a semantic issue: to be allowed to have their relationship legalised by calling it "marriage", but to a legal issue: to be allowed to legalise their relationship for the reason that they want to have the same legal rights.

Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as "civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships instead of marriage (ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835).

An example to the rights that are in question is that health insurance in Germany is cheaper for couples who marry or who are civil partners than it is for two adults in a relationship not legally defined (i.e. two girlfriends, a girlfriend and a boyfriend, two boyfriends).

Finally, by linking homosexuality and incest, the poster tries to create a link between homosexuality which is now acceptable by most people to incest which is universally unaccepted and immoral. In western countries one is also legal and the other isn't.

Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as "civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships instead of marriage (ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835).

Read that campaign again - it's as much about LGBT people having a right to marry as it is about civil partnerships for straight folk. It's about equal rights. Some of my gay friends would prefer to marry over a civil partnership. My partner and I would prefer a civil partnership - but can't coz we're straight.

Indeed - in the UK anyway - LGBT are likely to have the right to marry soon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412222). I don't think we'd be changing the legislation if folk weren't unhappy with the current status quo.

Just to clarify: 1. I did read the campaign but I didn't refer directly to this particular campaign but rather to the general situation in response to equating support for gay rights to support for other illegal activities (in this case incest, but sometimes it paedophilia or bestiality). 2. I am gay myself in a long-term relationship (10 years now) and I'm not interested in getting married myself, and neither do some of my gay friends who are also in long-term relationships. That's why I wrote "most homosexual couples" which I admit is not accurate either since I haven't taken a survey. Maybe it should have read "many" or maybe "in my experience, most", but the main point of my post remains the same and is that while for some (however many) gay couple the issue is also semantical, it's first and foremost an issue of equal rights. 3. I don't really want to comment about this campaign because I find it confusing. I don't understand why they don't start at home (USA, where Microsoft are already active promoting same-sex legalised partnerships) and in countries where the attitude towards homosexuality is generally positive, but which have not yet legalised same-sex partnerships (e.g. Israel). This is not criticism for the campaign, just an explanation why I my comments weren't about it. 4. I do support your and your partner's right to be civilly-partnered as opposed to getting married. I hope that you will be able to do that very soon.

"Finally, by linking homosexuality and incest, the poster tries to create a link between homosexuality which is now acceptable by most people to incest which is universally unaccepted and immoral. In western countries one is also legal and the other isn't."

I agree with you, but this argumentation is quite terrible.

If your main argument is "homosexuality is now universally accepted and normal". Then punishments to gays before being gay was accepted and normal are completely justifiable. Like Alan Turing's hormone treatment was ok?

Legality is just a approximation of this "is now universally accepted and normal". So it's weaker argument than the previous.

If you accept homosexuality because "no harm done to anyone". Then you should logically accept all other sexual stances as long as no harm is done to anyone. Right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com