Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaronbrethorst | Hacker News Reader

Here's a thought experiment for you. Let's say that a black woman and a white man want to get married, but there's a law on the books that says that people of different ethnicities can't get married. Would you say that this is a racist law? Would you say that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

Anti-miscegenation laws were deemed constitutional in the United States until 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on the aptly named Loving v. Virginia. Today, this case is cited as precedent for overturning gay marriage bans across the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

View on HN

I'm getting tired of seeing this interracial marriage argument here: they are in fact completely different. The movement against opposition to interracial marriage was an acceptance that there was no substantive difference between a black man/white man or black woman/white woman. One cannot say that there is "obviously" no substantive differences between a man and a woman, even if we restrict our consideration to the context of love. You can certainly argue that there aren't, but this conclusion does not follow from the conclusion regarding interracial marriage.

The reason you're getting tired of seeing this interracial marriage argument is because it demonstrates that your weak unconvincing arguments in support of bigotry against gays are the same as other people's weak unconvincing arguments in support of bigotry against mixed race couples. The reason you are tired is that you are wrong and on the wrong side of history, and you're wasting your energy fighting an uphill losing battle.

So stop complaining that people arguing for marriage equality are making you tired by pointing out that you're no better than bigots who argue against mixed race marriage. People's right to marry the partner they love trumps your right not to be tired of making weak unconvincing arguments. You are not the victim here.

I made a very clear argument as to why an argument against banning interracial marriage says nothing regarding the question of same sex marriage. Instead of addressing my argument head on you respond with the usual emotional non-arguments.

Also note that I never made an argument for or against gay marriage, I simply argued that your argument itself is faulty. People seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the two. Perhaps I'm a rare breed, but I will argue against bad arguments for a conclusion I agree with.

You guys are losing people by attempting to hitch the gay rights wagon onto the civil rights wagon. One does not immediately follow from the other.

Banning interracial marriage is ludicrous and bigoted. Also, it's not the same thing at all.

Banning gay marriage is ludicrous and bigoted. Also, it is the same thing at all.

Just because I'm succinct doesn't mean my assertions of fact are less valid than the rest of them. I'll gladly go into more detail when I feel like I'll be given a fair hearing.

Just because I disagree wholeheartedly with you doesn't mean I'm not curious. Please go into more detail.

The gist of the argument is that it's a false equivalence. It's not a radical view -- it is supported by a majority of Californians (certainly a progressive state). Unfortunately, judging from the downvotes I'm getting, this forum isn't as inclusive as it would like to be.

Regarding California: this is simply not true any longer. A poll conducted over a year ago found that over 60% of California RVs support legalizing gay marriage: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/fivethirtyeight/2013/03/01/p...

Please explain why you believe that this is a false equivalence.

Regardless of the precise numbers, a large chunk of one of the most progressive states in the U.S. thinks that it's not the same thing, so it's not a fringe position. The other states in the U.S,

It's a false equivalence because being a black person in the civil-right-era South isn't the same as being gay in California. Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but they're different both in kind and degree. Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing" (the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in the debate about gay marriage.

Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding, not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate.

OK, first off, when Loving v. Virginia made mixed-race marriages legal across the United States, only 20% of Americans supported mixed race marriages[1].

Secondly (and note that I'm switching off RV numbers from California and onto nationwide numbers without any reference to voter registration), 52% of Americans nationwide supported the legalization of gay marriage last year[2].

    [A] large chunk of one of the most progressive states
    in the U.S.

What percentage of Californians do you think should support it before it's made legal? A supermajority? Why?

    Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but
    they're different both in kind and degree.

Please explain the credentials or personal knowledge that help you properly categorize the severity of one wrong vs. another.

    Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing"
    (the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in
    the debate about gay marriage.

Patently false. Google 'regnerus' and 'michigan'.

    Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in
    with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking
    Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding,
    not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive
    ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate.

Wait, let me get this straight. Are you implying that it is bad for me to claim this is discriminatory behavior because it undermines inclusiveness? That's an utterly absurd argument.

You still haven't explained why you think gay marriage is bad.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh...

[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marr...

> ...it is bad for me to claim this is discriminatory behavior because it undermines inclusiveness?

By definition, not allowing homosexual marriage is discriminatory, as are any limits on who may be married, no matter how just the reason. The only non-discriminatory view is to get government out of the whole business of marriage (a view that seems more and more like the best compromise). If inclusiveness is the ultimate goal here, then silencing critics by equating them to obviously terrible people is hypocritical. Otherwise, people should be honest and admit that inclusiveness isn't the goal, imposing a different worldview is.

Reasons for traditional marriage:

1. I find a Burkean argument against rapid experimentation in our social fabric to be convincing, especially considering the ill effects of rapid social change in the U.S. in the 20th century and up to now.

2. Accidental pregnancy is a big problem. Creating mechanisms for heterosexual couples to pair of permanently, with compatible mates, is in the interest of society. This is especially true in the age of large social programs and the always-increasing extramarital birthrate, which is overwhelmingly due to unplanned pregnancies.

3. Defining marriage as a purely expressive act or as a bag of goodies is to miss a sine qua non of the institution: promotion of healthy, stable families. Families are much more spontaneous than we give them credit for, especially in the fertile ground of a heterosexual relationship. Ensuring smart pairings and then a permanence for those relationships is in the interest of everyone.

4. I believe that a family splitting itself up is much more costly than we want to admit. I believe difficulty in splitting up is a feature of good marriage tradition and law.

5. I we have already been trying to remedy the ills caused by broken homes with little success. I am not confident that a combination of birth control, social programs, education, etc. will solve this problem because we have been trying this for decades.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to people expressing themselves. If two men want to call each other husband until they die, that's their right. I'm not opposed to figuring a way to simply bestow inheritance rights or power of attorney. Or to address the other practical hurdles of that lifestyle.

But how do homosexual unions undermine traditional marriage? They don't, really, but that's not the issue here. The issue is an opposition to special privileges for straight couples (traditional marriage). Otherwise, we would be talking about civil unions or something (I'm sure some readers winced when I used the phrase civil union, which is the point). This is not about freedom; it's about acceptance. It's not just about rights and outcomes, it's about equal benefits and equal treatment.

So my view, that straight sexual partners are fundamentally different, is incompatible with the goals of current court cases and legislation involving homosexual rights. I'm coming around to the hope that we can get government out of the regulating marriage business altogether and support families in other ways (child tax credits? some sort of earned income tax multiplier for families?).

In the meantime, having government reduce marriage to simply another expression of love or a package of rights is something I will actively oppose. The stakes are too high and the damage is already being felt.

    The only non-discriminatory view is to
    get government out of the whole business
    of marriage

Ah, we have some common ground. I agree completely with this. I think that the government shouldn't grant marriage licenses to anyone, but instead—perhaps—domestic partnership licenses, but with the whole range of rights, responsibilities, and legal precedent that the institution of marriage carries today.

I think that marriage, despite its fraught history in the context of the Christian church, should be explicitly removed from government and handed over to other parties who may partake of it if they feel so inclined. I would much rather skip the whole marriage thing given the option.

> Ah, we have some common ground. I agree completely with this. I think that the government shouldn't grant marriage licenses to anyone, but instead—perhaps—domestic partnership licenses, but with the whole range of rights, responsibilities, and legal precedent that the institution of marriage carries today.

So… the government should do the exact same thing but call it something else because reasons?

> I would much rather skip the whole marriage thing given the option.

You have it, nobody will force you to marry if you don't want to.

Right, but I don't find non-discrimination to be as compelling an end as you do. I am more concerned about the secondary and tertiary effects of restructuring what family means. The binds of marriage do not solely affect the married parties, and any argument that does not address this point is incomplete at best.

I believe the case for homosexual marriage is incomplete in this way.

Here's another one: let's say 10 men and 10 women want to get married, as a group, but there's a law forbidding that. Would you say that's an anti-human law?

And another: a man and a simulated anime character want to get married, but there's a law forbidding it. Would you say that's against artificial intelligence, japanese animation or both?

Well, we exclude 10 men and 10 women marriages equally.

The issue is that marriage should be a simple tax/legal issue between N parties and nothing more. 10 people wanting to marry each other should certainly be given the same "benefits" as 2 people, adjusting to make sure there isn't some tax loophole.

And your second example is obviously discriminatory and against AIs. I assume the only reason you'd write such a line is because a sentient AI doesn't exist yet?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com