It still amazes me that in California if someone donates to anti-gay marriage initiative they can be openly called "absolute scumbag" and people just roll with it. It's called having political views.
Is opposing polygamy denying the humanity of polygamists/polyamorists?
Is opposing first cousin marriage denying the humanity of people in romantic relationships with their first cousins? (The first anniversary of Connecticut's first cousin marriage ban is later this week.)
Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
I mean the distinction is pretty obvious. Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits, and nobody has the motivation to carve out a legal distinction for them. Though I personally don't care if they do.
Gay spouses were not looking for preferential treatment or special consideration. They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
> Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
Yes? Potentially even more so? I think most people supporting same sex marriage would see a ban on interfaith marriage as abhorrent. That's overly militant religious persecution.
> Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits,
I don't see how that's so. Polygamy is legal in 58 nations worldwide. How "complicated" do they find it?
Australia has legal de facto polygamy. To explain: under Australian law, unregistered cohabitation is classified as a "de facto relationship", it entails (in principle) the same legal rights as marriage does. While Australia only permits a person to be in a single de jure marriage at a time, a person can be in multiple de facto relationships simultaneously. If that isn't "overly complicated" for Australia, what makes it "overly complicated" for the US?
> They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
Did gay people who opposed same sex marriage do so purely because they saw themselves as "gross"?
In a previous generation, the deserving target of eyerolls and groans was people who both-sidesed an issue. In part because it was shallow, and part because it was just a weaponized way of talking where you get to be political under superficial the guise of neutrality. Asking an audience to believe it is just not respecting the intelligence of your audience.
I think the version of that for our generation is the person who says "Gosh let's not talk politics" about obviously political things when doing so is clearly just to shield preferred targets from criticism. Of course it's not always that, and you can never prove it in any particular instance, which is why it's such convenient phrasing. But it gets eye-rolls for a reason.
I wouldn’t find “let’s not talk about politics” eye-rolling and neither would my social circle (first generation Asian families). In fact if someone kept bringing up politics in an overly emotional or pushy way, they probably wouldn’t be invited back.
There was a famous court case where the gay widow had no legal rights over their dying partners medical care, that is a pronounced human right that a heterosexual couple has over a gay couple that has been defined and why the opposition actually hurts people in ways many have not considered.
The same way they have today, through a court order. People didn't have a problem with extending whatever legal protections to gay people, they objected to redefining marriage to get there. There was always a compromise available but again, sticking it to the religious types was the goal.
How do you propose to get a court order in a state that doesn't recognize (Edit: other states') civil unions? The whole point of marriage protections is that they transfer across states.
> There was always a compromise available but again, sticking it to the religious types was the goal.
Once you understand the difference between a state recognized civil union and a marriage that transfers across states, I'm sure you'll realize that this was instead religious people sticking it to gay people.
> How do you propose to get a court order in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions?
All 50 states recognize civil unions or other relationship arrangements. At that point the courts just have to demand that states treat them the same as any other marriage. Not impossible, certainly not any more so than the seismic shift of redefining a centuries old definition of marriage.
> All 50 states recognize civil unions or other relationship arrangements.
Sorry, but your attempt to claim "separate but equal" fails to fit reality. The Full Faith and Credit Clause did not afford civil unions the same protections as marriages.
"But suppose that you and your same-sex partner drive from Maryland to Vermont to enter into a civil union because it is the only state that recognizes a significant legal relationship between same-sex couples. If an accident occurs on your drive home and one of you is hospitalized, most states and institutions will not acknowledge your legal relationship with your spouse."
> seismic shift of redefining a centuries old definition of marriage.
Just as before, you are free to get a religious "marriage" that is unrecognized by the state. Just as before, the state can issue a marriage license to people that a particular religion does not approve (e.g., Orthodox rabbis are forbidden from officiating or validating non-Jewish weddings and do not recognize the resulting marriages, and the LDS church taught that interracial marriage, aside from between white men with native American women, was a sin until 2013). The only thing that changes is what marriages the state allows. There was no "seismic shift" outside the small minds of bigots.
do you remember when we didn't have to know everything about everyone and didn't feel obliged to only use products created by those with the same opinions as us?
It always surprises me that people can't take a step back and understand that objecting to today's progress is like objecting to women voting, or interracial marriage. You're just signing up to be mad your whole life and to be seen as a historical curiosity.
Eugenics was also considered "today's progress" at some point, and the people who opposed it were mostly coming from a religious perspective.
I am not opposed to any of the things your examples of progress, just felt the need to mention that your argument is begging the question.
The majority of the voters was on his side. 52.24% voted yes and there was a 79.42% voter turn out. A huge number of Californians agreed with him at the time. This is quite a bit different than segregation today since acceptance of gay marriage was quite a bit lower and it was a newer issue than segregation.
Racial integration was wildly unpopular in the south when it became a hot political issue of the day, yet that fact doesn't make the opposition to it any more palatable to modern sensibilities. The only point I was trying to make was that you can't hand-wave away something you don't want to pick a side on by saying it's just a political view when a large portion of the society you exist in see it as a civil rights issue.
Well, I guess that too has its caveats. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama were both vocally against same-sex marriage during run up to the 2008 election, I believe roughly the same time that the Prop 8 fight was happening. They didn't switch sides until public opinion started swaying in favor of it and I've never seen anyone hold their feet to the fire or call them "absolute scumbags" over it. Well, no one that wasn't already calling them that at least.
> Having the opinion that there should be restaurants, stores, and bathrooms only for white people was an acceptable, mainstream political view during my father's lifetime.
Only in the US, South Africa and Rhodesia.
Same sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the world until very recently, and still does not exist in most of the world.
Someone who derides someone else who donates to causes they find disgusting is also a political view. You're just talking about two people with political views.
> Calling a named individual an "absolute scumbag" in this context is fine grounds as any for a lawsuit.
Based on your misunderstandings of US defamation laws, and the fact that you jumped to stabbing over shooting, it sounds like you've been steeping too much in eurotrash defamation rules. Here in America, truth and opinion are both perfect defenses against defamation lawsuits. My comment consisted only of true facts (the man donated to support prop 8), and the opinions that follow from those facts (the man is a scumbag). You can only sue someone for lying about you, and for public figures like a CEO, you need to prove they were lying on purpose.
It would obviously amaze me if I am called a scumbag for simply having political views, the same way how unbelievable it is that people get called scumbags for simply wanting to ban gay marriage.
karol · · focus · HN ↗
220hertz · · focus · HN ↗
akimbostrawman · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
kakuri · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
bigstrat2003 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Capricorn2481 · · focus · HN ↗
How so?
skissane · · focus · HN ↗
Is opposing first cousin marriage denying the humanity of people in romantic relationships with their first cousins? (The first anniversary of Connecticut's first cousin marriage ban is later this week.)
Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
Capricorn2481 · · focus · HN ↗
Gay spouses were not looking for preferential treatment or special consideration. They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
> Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?
Yes? Potentially even more so? I think most people supporting same sex marriage would see a ban on interfaith marriage as abhorrent. That's overly militant religious persecution.
skissane · · focus · HN ↗
I don't agree it is obvious
> Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits,
I don't see how that's so. Polygamy is legal in 58 nations worldwide. How "complicated" do they find it?
Australia has legal de facto polygamy. To explain: under Australian law, unregistered cohabitation is classified as a "de facto relationship", it entails (in principle) the same legal rights as marriage does. While Australia only permits a person to be in a single de jure marriage at a time, a person can be in multiple de facto relationships simultaneously. If that isn't "overly complicated" for Australia, what makes it "overly complicated" for the US?
> They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
Did gay people who opposed same sex marriage do so purely because they saw themselves as "gross"?
<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-oppose-same-sex-marriage/8871118" rel="nofollow">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-op...
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
I think the version of that for our generation is the person who says "Gosh let's not talk politics" about obviously political things when doing so is clearly just to shield preferred targets from criticism. Of course it's not always that, and you can never prove it in any particular instance, which is why it's such convenient phrasing. But it gets eye-rolls for a reason.
butlike · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
qwerpy · · focus · HN ↗
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
swozey · · focus · HN ↗
xienze · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
lern_too_spel · · focus · HN ↗
xienze · · focus · HN ↗
lern_too_spel · · focus · HN ↗
> There was always a compromise available but again, sticking it to the religious types was the goal.
Once you understand the difference between a state recognized civil union and a marriage that transfers across states, I'm sure you'll realize that this was instead religious people sticking it to gay people.
xienze · · focus · HN ↗
All 50 states recognize civil unions or other relationship arrangements. At that point the courts just have to demand that states treat them the same as any other marriage. Not impossible, certainly not any more so than the seismic shift of redefining a centuries old definition of marriage.
lern_too_spel · · focus · HN ↗
Sorry, but your attempt to claim "separate but equal" fails to fit reality. The Full Faith and Credit Clause did not afford civil unions the same protections as marriages.
<a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/interstate-validation-marriages-civil-unions/" rel="nofollow">https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-righ...
"But suppose that you and your same-sex partner drive from Maryland to Vermont to enter into a civil union because it is the only state that recognizes a significant legal relationship between same-sex couples. If an accident occurs on your drive home and one of you is hospitalized, most states and institutions will not acknowledge your legal relationship with your spouse."
> seismic shift of redefining a centuries old definition of marriage.
Just as before, you are free to get a religious "marriage" that is unrecognized by the state. Just as before, the state can issue a marriage license to people that a particular religion does not approve (e.g., Orthodox rabbis are forbidden from officiating or validating non-Jewish weddings and do not recognize the resulting marriages, and the LDS church taught that interracial marriage, aside from between white men with native American women, was a sin until 2013). The only thing that changes is what marriages the state allows. There was no "seismic shift" outside the small minds of bigots.
etcetcetcetceta · · focus · HN ↗
glitch13 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
gdulli · · focus · HN ↗
phainopepla2 · · focus · HN ↗
I am not opposed to any of the things your examples of progress, just felt the need to mention that your argument is begging the question.
throw9383930 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
ImJamal · · focus · HN ↗
glitch13 · · focus · HN ↗
Well, I guess that too has its caveats. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama were both vocally against same-sex marriage during run up to the 2008 election, I believe roughly the same time that the Prop 8 fight was happening. They didn't switch sides until public opinion started swaying in favor of it and I've never seen anyone hold their feet to the fire or call them "absolute scumbags" over it. Well, no one that wasn't already calling them that at least.
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
Only in the US, South Africa and Rhodesia.
Same sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the world until very recently, and still does not exist in most of the world.
fckgw · · focus · HN ↗
undershirt · · focus · HN ↗
OkayPhysicist · · focus · HN ↗
carlosjobim · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
OkayPhysicist · · focus · HN ↗
Based on your misunderstandings of US defamation laws, and the fact that you jumped to stabbing over shooting, it sounds like you've been steeping too much in eurotrash defamation rules. Here in America, truth and opinion are both perfect defenses against defamation lawsuits. My comment consisted only of true facts (the man donated to support prop 8), and the opinions that follow from those facts (the man is a scumbag). You can only sue someone for lying about you, and for public figures like a CEO, you need to prove they were lying on purpose.
Oarch · · focus · HN ↗
lirolero · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
OkayPhysicist · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]