6 ms·

Wow, even on HN, there are people that oppose gay marriage? That surprises me.

gpvos 13y ago
There's quite some space between opposing something and not finding something important enough to fund activism in favour of it.
- mcv 13y ago
  ACLU does quite a bit more than just support gay marriage, though. If they do a lot of things you think are great, and a few you're meh about, it's still good to donate. The people who donate primarily for the gay marriage fight don't get to earmark their money either.
  - aestra 13y ago
    There's other charities with a narrower focus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_Marry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_Marry
  - temp453463343 13y ago
    Yeah, and that was kinda my point. I don't see why they don't make it possible to earmark money - I think they would end up getting a LOT more funding: People that don't want to fund gay marriage advocacy would donate to the issues that they find more important, and people that feel strongly about gay marriage would donate more because they know it would all go towards their pet issue.
- rmc 13y ago
  Yeah, marriage is overrated. It's not worth fighting for. Or are you straight and hence it doesn't affect you? Kinda defeats the point of donating to charities...
  - yawgmoth 13y ago
    Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I can't provide health insurance to my partner and we pay quite a bit more in taxes than a married couple. I would like to not pay more because of whom I choose to marry.
    - boot 13y ago
      I'm all for marrying who you want, but if you live in the US your tax comment doesn't make sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
      - nbouscal 13y ago
        Umm... did you actually read the link that you just cited? “Multiple factors are involved, but in general, lower to middle income couples usually benefit from filing as a married couple, while upper income couples are often penalized.”
jeffwidman 13y ago
This really shouldn't be a surprise as there are generally very smart people on both sides of polarizing issues. I know a lot of smart people, myself included, who read HN regularly and oppose gay marriage.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  Why do you oppose gay marriage? I'm not looking to start a debate, I won't even respond if you'd prefer (tho I'm sure others will...). I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning from someone who has given it critical thought and can articulate their viewpoint well.
  - temp453463343 13y ago
    Hey, the original parent poster: (I figure I'd weigh in) I'm not strongly against gay marriage. I simply don't support it. Sorry if my explanation is a little disjointed. There isn't one particular issue that explains it all. I see the whole issue as completely artificial. It was almost entirely created and started by Gavin Newsom (former mayor of SF). It was a demogogic move on his part to try to get support for his run for governor several years later. Aside: Ironic it backfired and ended up pigeon holeing him as a far left politician. No one talked about or wanted gay marriage before he brought it up. A more nebulous reason is that society is moving away from marriage. People are more and more living in civil unions. Marriage has become a religious/traditional thing. So revising/redefining antiquated traditions to appease a group of people seems unnecessary. I think the idea of redefining a term like marriage is also rather problematic for me. It's always described a union between a man and a woman, since like the times of Hammurabi - and now we're just redefining it? It seems a little absurd. The address the issue, we created a new term. "Civil Unions". But for some reason this isn't good enough - and I don't know why. Seems like the real goal is to redefine a several thousand year old term - which kinda seems revisionist to me. Another argument I've seen and that I've never seen addressed is: why do gay couples get to marry and not polyamorous people? Seems like there is a double standard here.I personally feel like if they're going to go through all of this, they might as well allow all marriage. At the end of the day I wouldn't really care if gay marriage passed. What bothers me the most is that so much time, effort and money is spent on something that is a rather insignificant issue. The right to visit loved ones at a hospital and the tax benefits are more symptomatic of broken hospital/tax laws than a huge national issue on par with the civil rights movement. I think calling gay marriage a civil rights issue is hyperbolic and disingenuous (and is polyamorous marriage a civil rights issue too?). I think there are way way way more important issues currently to deal. Thousands of people are rotting in jails for non violent crimes, thousands of people have their lives ruined by medical bills, thousands of people are forced into plea bargains for crimes they never committed. There is so much suffering happening around us, and we spend out time arguing about redefining marriage. It's just really frustrating for me to see this artificial debate occupy so much of the collective unconscious of the country (and now the world).

gpvos 13y ago

There's quite some space between opposing something and not finding something important enough to fund activism in favour of it.

mcv 13y ago
ACLU does quite a bit more than just support gay marriage, though. If they do a lot of things you think are great, and a few you're meh about, it's still good to donate. The people who donate primarily for the gay marriage fight don't get to earmark their money either.
- aestra 13y ago
  There's other charities with a narrower focus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_Marry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_Marry
- temp453463343 13y ago
  Yeah, and that was kinda my point. I don't see why they don't make it possible to earmark money - I think they would end up getting a LOT more funding: People that don't want to fund gay marriage advocacy would donate to the issues that they find more important, and people that feel strongly about gay marriage would donate more because they know it would all go towards their pet issue.
rmc 13y ago
Yeah, marriage is overrated. It's not worth fighting for. Or are you straight and hence it doesn't affect you? Kinda defeats the point of donating to charities...
- yawgmoth 13y ago
  Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I can't provide health insurance to my partner and we pay quite a bit more in taxes than a married couple. I would like to not pay more because of whom I choose to marry.
  - boot 13y ago
    I'm all for marrying who you want, but if you live in the US your tax comment doesn't make sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
    - nbouscal 13y ago
      Umm... did you actually read the link that you just cited? “Multiple factors are involved, but in general, lower to middle income couples usually benefit from filing as a married couple, while upper income couples are often penalized.”

jeffwidman 13y ago

This really shouldn't be a surprise as there are generally very smart people on both sides of polarizing issues. I know a lot of smart people, myself included, who read HN regularly and oppose gay marriage.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
Why do you oppose gay marriage? I'm not looking to start a debate, I won't even respond if you'd prefer (tho I'm sure others will...). I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning from someone who has given it critical thought and can articulate their viewpoint well.
- temp453463343 13y ago
  Hey, the original parent poster: (I figure I'd weigh in) I'm not strongly against gay marriage. I simply don't support it. Sorry if my explanation is a little disjointed. There isn't one particular issue that explains it all. I see the whole issue as completely artificial. It was almost entirely created and started by Gavin Newsom (former mayor of SF). It was a demogogic move on his part to try to get support for his run for governor several years later. Aside: Ironic it backfired and ended up pigeon holeing him as a far left politician. No one talked about or wanted gay marriage before he brought it up. A more nebulous reason is that society is moving away from marriage. People are more and more living in civil unions. Marriage has become a religious/traditional thing. So revising/redefining antiquated traditions to appease a group of people seems unnecessary. I think the idea of redefining a term like marriage is also rather problematic for me. It's always described a union between a man and a woman, since like the times of Hammurabi - and now we're just redefining it? It seems a little absurd. The address the issue, we created a new term. "Civil Unions". But for some reason this isn't good enough - and I don't know why. Seems like the real goal is to redefine a several thousand year old term - which kinda seems revisionist to me. Another argument I've seen and that I've never seen addressed is: why do gay couples get to marry and not polyamorous people? Seems like there is a double standard here.I personally feel like if they're going to go through all of this, they might as well allow all marriage. At the end of the day I wouldn't really care if gay marriage passed. What bothers me the most is that so much time, effort and money is spent on something that is a rather insignificant issue. The right to visit loved ones at a hospital and the tax benefits are more symptomatic of broken hospital/tax laws than a huge national issue on par with the civil rights movement. I think calling gay marriage a civil rights issue is hyperbolic and disingenuous (and is polyamorous marriage a civil rights issue too?). I think there are way way way more important issues currently to deal. Thousands of people are rotting in jails for non violent crimes, thousands of people have their lives ruined by medical bills, thousands of people are forced into plea bargains for crimes they never committed. There is so much suffering happening around us, and we spend out time arguing about redefining marriage. It's just really frustrating for me to see this artificial debate occupy so much of the collective unconscious of the country (and now the world).