Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

It's kind of hard to say "you do not deserve to share your life with the person you love. You don't deserve to take care of them when they're sick. You don't deserve a family with them. Because you're gay" without actually hating gay people.

Just because you don't call for somebody to be killed doesn't mean you don't hate them.

There are very solid reasons for seeing marriage as a life-long commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of providing a stable home for the children that they conceive that has nothing to do with hating gays. This is something humans have understood for thousands of years, but only in my lifetime we seem to have forgotten.

No, there really aren't. The socioeconomic consequences of a couple are the socioeconomic consequences of a couple, no matter the dangly bits. We're not all having children.

It also turns out raising children also is not negatively affected by the parents being gay. (Plenty of studies on the subject, go read some).

Leaves actually having children. Is your argument that we all should breed? Then your argument is seriously broken, the world is about 300% over capacity already.

So, no - it's still rooted in hate. (Or fear, really)

I'm not sure what world you live in that not being able to enter a formal contract with a partner means "you do not deserve to share your life with the person you love. You don't deserve to take care of them when they're sick. You don't deserve a family with them. Because you're gay" A piece of paper and some legal guarantees is not stopping you from having a family, sharing your life with and aiding said person in sickness.

I am and always were in favor of gay marriage as long as marriages were a thing(as in, i'd rather they not exist as a "formal" thing), but this hyperbolic nonsense that the only possible reason there is disagreement on it is because they hate the gays and nothing else is just silly.

There are lots of legal wrinkles to that "piece of paper", for instance with respect to hospital visitation policies and the ability to adopt. So yes, some of those things are directly impacted.

In 2008 some people were against gay marriage without saying any of those things. At the time some arguments against gay marriage didn't involve being against gay people. One example would be the people who saw marriage and its attendant privileges as a reproductive subsidy. Yes, there are many reasonable ways to disagree that, but I'm not saying Eich was right - only that we don't have clear proof of any inner hatred. A nice, rational person can believe something that is realized to be untrue a decade later, that's just how science works. Even if you're 100% convinced that every argument in 2008 against gay marriage was false, that's still not sufficient to demonstrate that everyone who was against it was evil.

You're providing counter-arguments against the correctness of the argument the parent suggested, but otherwise good people can believe incorrect arguments. You can't assume that someone was aware of all those studies, some of which have been conducted in the years since, and none of which are taught about in elementary school. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Mozilla CEO believed something incorrect, you also have to demonstrate that evil was the only explanation.

I still don't understand, how would gays being allow to marry have an effect on hetero marriges?

By the way today a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or whatever, can have children , and in that case should provide a stable home for them. In my country most gay couples that bother about marrying, usually also want to raise children and provide them with a stable home.

This' "gays" are destroying family values', is a silly fallacy, because these marrying gays, WANT a family.

Saying Your family is OK and their family is somehow dangerous reeks of hate. .

The point is that differentiating between a gay couple and a straight couple on anything (other their sex organs) is just absurd and without any hold in reality. Even if there was a significant difference between these couple regarding child rearing, the burden of proof is on you. The fact that marriage between man and woman is old and known doesn't mean it is good, or better than other types of couples.

Most people who assume this difference, assume it a priori to any knowledge or facts. People who want to limit others because of ignorance is called hatred in my book, even if some of your best friends are gay...

Not allowing a legal marriage recognized by the state doesn't strictly prevent much of what you wrote. Although it does prevent some privileges (e.g. hospital visitation rights) which was definitely an issue at the time.

so before getting married a couple has to sign a contract expressing that they will conceive children, otherwise be stripped from their married status?

It's curious that I've never seen anyone campaining against childless marriages, only against gay marriages.

US immigration laws require an actual marriage, not just something that looks like one. Please educate yourself about what marriage actually means, not just what you think it means.

This is a common misconception which reduces structural discrimination to individual resentment. In reality, it does not matter at all whether the actor had evil in their heart — it only matters what the effects are (ability to adopt, hospital visitation rights, ability to immigrate etc).

So nonbinary people shouldn't be able to marry at all?

Your simplified model falls apart the moment it meets the real world.

Hospital visitation is not just "an issue". Taking care of your spouse when they're sick is one of the core aspects of marriage. What else would "in sickness and in health" mean?

Hey, we can have a conversation like adults or you can browbeat me with semantics. Your choice. You haven't taught me a lesson here by trying to police the words I used.

Being right about everything that matters is an unreasonable standard to hold people to, because nobody is right about everything that matters. I guarantee that you and I are both mistaken in ways that cause us to support sub-optimal policies whose effects legitimately hurt people. If we keep open minds, we may even realize some of these errors in the future - unless we're just wrong so we can be evil, which is why there's a distinction between "wrong" and "purposely wrong in order to be evil."

My point is that hospital visitation rights are incredibly important and a society which fails to extend them to all relationships is actively discriminating.

We should protest the hospitals, that's a ridiculous policy.

Plenty of people aren't getting married today and are in long term relationships equivalent to old-school marriage. My spouse and I have made it a point not to.

Abortion, gun control, taxation, etc. are all referred to as "issues" in politics. I get your point is that this is more important than just an issue, but really the other side of your point is you assumed that I must not think it was of significant importance to use such a phrase as "an issue" to describe it.

Do you rail against society every time abortion is referred to as an "issue"? Seems like an important one, whether or not we think terminating a fetus is moral or immoral.

Do you get upset if you look at a political candidate's campaign website and see a link to a page called "issues"?

You perceived a slight that was not there.

I think / thought it was messed up that two people who love each other, regardless of gender (please don't lay into me for using that word if it's incorrect), could be denied visitation rights at a hospital. That doesn't mean I cannot refer to it as "an issue."

You’re talking about people who donated to campaigns to nullify the marriages of childless couples?

I agree with you, but this is a truly unpopular opinion.

People REALLY hate the idea that they’re responsible for things they haven’t even conceived of.

Eich never said anything like you attribute to him, neither did many of the opponents of that particular political campaign.

> Just because you don't call for somebody to be killed doesn't mean you don't hate them.

Just because you disagree with somebody about policy, it doesn't mean you must hate them. Unfortunately, nowdays it appears to be almost mandatory.

Eich donated to a campaign that wanted to nullify gay marriages. I mean sure, you can make the argument that it came from a dispassionate place, but that applies to Eichman et.al. too. You can create hateful end results without ever investing the energy to hate the people you affect.

That doesn't make you any less hateful.

In your life, how do you handle the guilt for your countless unknowing political sins? Does it look exactly the same as what you would do if you didn't think you were guilty?

My 20 something cousin had emergency surgery that resulted in a hysterectomy. She can never have children. According to your argument she shouldn't get married either?

I don’t do much with the unknowing ones.

With newly known ones, I feel bad, and then I try to understand how I could be better.

I’m not sure I understand your question.

Way to compare your political opponents to Eichman while lecturing them on not being hateful.

No nullification. See next-in-time-order comment from me on this post.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891, which I will quote in part:

"Prop 8 would not and did not "nullify" any marriages licensed by the state in the middle of 2008. See

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive...

Retroactive or ex-post-facto law is unconstitutional. I am a big fan of this principle. It protects all of us."

I did not support nullification, and it was never going to happen, because it would have been unconstitutional, as then-AG/once-and-future-governor Jerry Brown said. What's more, Prop 8 actually passed, and no nullifications occurred.

Are you aware of California's form of civil unions, Domestic Partnership Law? Still on the books, and it provides the same positive rights with respect to hospital visitations, etc. I was among the majority of Californias who supported this law as passed and amended. I would not have supported Prop 8 without it on the books.

Federal law (DOMA) preempted state law here. I was against DOMA on legal grounds, FWIW. California was not going to get around DOMA by changing state law.

So whom did you donate to in your quest to get DOMA repealed, and how much?

I voted Obama in 2008, that was more than enough. When will you acknowledge that your immigration claim about state law was in error?

With all due respect, discriminating against gay people was also unconstitutional, that didn't stop it from being introduced. And nullification was a part of what prop 8 proponents asked for from the very beginning. (And filed a lawsuit to achieve right after prop 8 passed)

You chose your bed to lie in, part and parcel - because that's how voting on & supporting propositions works. You don't get to claim post-hoc you were only supporting parts of it.

I'm not claiming anything "post-hoc", because I have never supported retroactive laws. Have you? Or were you ignorant of their unconstitutionality and projecting that ignorance onto me?

I voted for Obama in 2008, but I didn't endorse everything he did or stood for. If you voted for him, were you at that time lying in bed with his rejection of marriage equality? Answer honestly, and by your own phony standard! You don't get to claim "post-hoc" that you were clairvoyantly counting on him to "evolve" in 2012.

Your reply is deeply dishonest.