I say allow people to be wrong and to learn from it. It takes patience and lots of tongue bitting.
You are entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately their intolerance hurts others besides yourself.
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. ~ John F. Kennedy
3 Likes
Not when you are claiming the moral high ground. There are still people that wonât by a Nestle product, or use modern technology, or non-renewable energy no matter how inconvenient. If you are going to go to great lengths to tell me how much of an a-hole Wagner is and then turn around and have his music piped in 24/7 to sell your product yeah I do think itâs fair to ask you if there isnât another composer that would fit your ideals a bit more. Functional websites can be done without javascript. If we are going to go down the road of moral convenience then I donât understand what all the fuss is about. Use his stuff or donât, but if their ethics stop when it is a pain in the butt and hurts their quarterly profit, well then no, that just makes them assholes.
Putting mayonnaise on french fries is an abomination.
You canât control the distribution that way. You dip the fries into the mayonnaise.
4 Likes
kinda. If you chose to follow a revealed religion, you donât really get intellectually, to âpick and chooseâ what parts of that revealed religion you will hold to, at least, if youâre choosing a revealed religion because you agree it is the revelation of God.
Also, many say how unfair it is that we let kids be indoctrinated in their religion from their youth. So if he was indoctrinated, did he really chose his religion?
Letâs swap out the word âreligionâ for something else in the above, perhaps âhatred of black peopleâ. Can I no longer hold a racist accountable for their hate, because it was indoctrinated into them as a child?
Religion is a choice. Just like any strongly held belief is a choice. Some choices are easier than others, but ultimately all are decisions you choose to make. Legally condoning someoneâs choice to hate on the grounds that it is Religiously motivated is crazy.
3 Likes
Because they believed that Obamaâs original stated opposition to SSM was strategic lying for the purposes of political expediency. Lying is OK when itâs for a Good Cause, or didnât you get the memo??
I donât like this assumption that all people who supported prop 8 are bigots. As it is, we know he gave a relatively small amount of money to support it before he was CEO. Many people from many major tech firms did the same. We donât know the exact reasons, because they are his private political views and he didnât tell us. In any case, it appears that he stands behind his actions to the extent that he wonât make a public apology for them. Maybe he still believes the same thing as he did in 2008, maybe heâd just rather not have to put his views past the internet and the worldâs media for their approval.
Not everyone who doesnât agree with SSM is anti-gay, and some are gay themselves. While this isnât true for everyone, for many gay marriage is a complex issue that encompasses more than just civil rights: your definition of marriage will determine whether the fact that the couple is of the same sex makes a significant difference. Itâs true that his support affected a number of homosexuals who wanted to get married, but in terms of non-symbolic consequences this law had a much lower impact than if a CEO gave money to oppose Obamacare or different environmental protection laws - most of the benefits of marriage given in the law were already available to same sex couples with domestic partnerships.
As a number of people have pointed out, it is your right to use your money to support or withdraw support from companies based their ethical position, and also to encourage others to do the same. Opposition to someoneâs use of their right to free speech does not entail censorship. Still, demanding someoneâs resignation based on something they did a number of years ago that has not been shown to affect their work at all and without knowing their motives (because of course itâs bigotry) doesnât show a lot of commitment to free speech. I do support SSM and have often had strong disagreements with people who oppose it, but I wouldnât go after their job for that reason, especially when their views in this area have very little to do with it.
1 Like
Can you name anyone who affiliates as LBGT who does not support SSM or are you just saying that? Can you provide some examples of reasons someone would not support SSM other than bigotry? I canât wait for your response.
4 Likes
Mod note: Stay on topic. Stop the personal attacks or I am going to be full tonight.
1 Like
Yeah, Iâll go ahead and watch out for that backlash that is coming any second now. Any moment the rapid swing to not brutalize sexual minorities with the force of government is totally going to reverse itself.
As for el Prez, I was very vocally pissed and âwent afterâ him when he was still for using the force of the state to brutalize sexual minorities. I am still a little pissed at how long it took for him to grow a pair and âevolveâ on the issue. That said, I am also a firm believer that once someone stops seeking to strip the civil liberty of others, you forgive and move on. The point isnât retribution. The point is to make the lives of gay folks more tolerable and to as quickly as possible halt state sanctioned brutalization of them.
If Eich had come out and declare that seeking to strip his fellow citizens of basic civil liberty because he found their sexuality icky was a terrible mistake and that he now realize that seeking to brutalize innocent people who have done him no harm is wrong, I would have been first in line to congratulate him not being such a bigot, move on, not give two shits about company he was running.
4 Likes
Sorry you donât like the assumption, but it is reality. If you seek the use the state to systematically strip civil liberties from an already brutalized minority, I am not sure what else you could possibly be besides a bigot. You might be a nice guy in lots of other ways, but when it comes to treating gay folks are your fellow equal humans, if you are opposed to same sex marriage, you are without a doubt a bigot.
The token arguments against same sex marriage are always hilariously transparent. There is no movement to write into the constitution that rapist or people who beat their children canât get married, so I think it is pretty safe to say that âfor the childrenâ is hilariously wrong and asinine answer. The fact that same sex couples are exponentially more likely to adopt unwanted children than straight folks also gives pretty strong lie to âfor the childrenâ.
No dude. No gay folks are against same sex marriage. There are gay (and straight) folks who might not be interested marriage, but there is no sane and healthy gay person who thinks that having their civil liberty stripped from them is super awesome.
There is a reason why you donât see liberals calling for the heads of CEOs who are opposed to Obamacare. You can reasonably believe that Obamacare is good or bad, or that certain types of environmental protection are worth the cost or not. Even when we violently disagree on other policy matters, we can accept that the other side truly wants what is best. If you seek to strip your fellow citizens of their liberty though, you are just a fucking bigot. There is no movement to prevent child rapist from being prevented from marrying. There is no movement to prevent poor and drug addicted people from marrying. It is pretty safe to say that child rapist and poor drug addicted people make worse parents than a gay couple. So the only reason why you could be for seeking to target an already abused minority and strip them of their liberty is because you are a bigot. That puts in a whole new class of worthless asshole. Folks like that belong in the same bin as Naziâs and segrigationist.
6 Likes
No. Working to take away a group of peopleâs civil liberties is actual persecution. The freedom to have an opinion about his opinion, is the same freedom he had to have his opinion in the first place, and is in no possible conceivable way persecution. Just because you are free to have an opinion doesnât mean that opinion canât have social consequences. These distinctions are very important to understand if you want to have an intelligent conversation on the subject.
Iâve never met one, but if such a person existed then yes indeed they are anti-gay, it is possible to be gay and anti-gay (ahem conservatives who pass anti-gay legislation then get caught having gay sex in airport bathrooms), self hatred and being against ones own interests isnât something that only occurs in straight people. There is a huge difference between not being for something yourself, and trying to deny others who are for it the right to it. HUGE. If you arenât personally for gay marriage, fine, donât marry someone of the same gender, problem solved. If you are trying to impose your opinion forcefully onto others by taking away their civil liberties then that is not okay and that is a very different thing.
you are confusing completely different issues. ensuring everyone gets health care doesnât infringe on anyoneâs civil liberties nor does it discriminate against any group, neither does protecting the environment. In both those cases, whether or not you agree with the policies, the base intention is positive as opposed to being intentionally harmful and discriminatory.
this would likely not be an issue if he was at another company or he wasnât the ceo. the ceo is a leadership position and drives the vision of a company, and Mozilla specifically has set itself up as a bastion of personal freedoms. So yeah this isnât an offense that would result in anyone losing any job, but it most certainly does make him not the right fit for this specific job, as he has stated in his own words himself. both sides seem to be in agreement on that fact.
I agree and think most of us feel the same way. If he didnât continue to think this way and defend his actions this would be a non-story.
like your comment x 1000, well said!
4 Likes
Brian Sewell recently wrote about not supporting SSM. His basic argument seems to be that it doesnât fit the traditional Christian standard for marriage (procreation, faithfulness and mutual society)
In 2008, Elton John said that civil unions have the same benefits as marriage, and gays were making a mistake to want marriage (mostly because it was a sticking point for the general population though, not because was wrong in itself). By 2011 heâd obviously changed his mind as he took part in a concert against prop 8, then he got married in the last week, so it seems his views are now firmly pro marriage.
I think for many people who support LGBT rights generally, but not up to SSM, their definition of marriage means that it is not a suitable word to describe a lifelong relationship between people of the same gender. While homosexuals can adopt or have surrogate children, their relationship by its nature wonât lead to children. Some feel that gender is complementary and that thereâs a particular value to having parents of each gender. Some reject a lot of the changes to marriage over recent decades, and feel that this would only further establish the institution on poor foundations.
As I said, I donât agree with these arguments; I find them weak and unconvincing. Many people who use them are just trying to justify their own bigotry, but it isnât just bigots who oppose gay marriage.
@redesigned I used the example of opposing Obamacare and environmental policies, because they are examples that have been given before on BB. In both cases, you could assume that the CEO in question doesnât care about their employees our the environment and just wants to make more money for themselves, but there are a number of reasons people could oppose those policies. In both cases, the actual damaging effects could be huge if they got their way, even if they did this for good motives.
1 Like
So⌠perhaps lâve missed something here, but l have a question. Could this whole situation have been avoided by Eich if heâd donated any amount up to $999?
Please note that lâm Australian (and too lazy to Google right now) and therefore donât understand the rules surrounding political donations in California. Nor am l agreeing with his decision to oppose same-sex marriage. Just curious about whether he could have effectively hidden his donation had he contributed one dollar less.
I realize you are donât necessarily agree with some of the arguments that you are presenting, but let me deconstruct this one anyway.
It is good to remember that âtraditional christian marriageâ was one man and many women, and the women were purchased as property from their fathers at a frighteningly young age without asking the women or the women giving consent. Obviously the traditional definition has evolved and shifted over time to fit with the values of modern society, and it needs to do so again. Also those points donât make sense and are meant to mislead the argument from the real reasons people oppose gay marriage. Gay marriage does benefit mutual society. Gay people are just as capable of being faithful and straight people just as capable of being unfaithful in marriage. We donât prohibit barren people or people with reproductive issues/conditions from marrying. All those arguments are red herrings meant to justify bigotry and are not the actual reasons that these people are against gay marriage.
Even if one tried to use one of the above arguments as to why they personally arenât in favor of gay marriage, none of them would justify preventing people who are for it from having the right to marry. These sorts of arguments are disingenuous cover arguments that outright bigotry hides behind.
Yes, but again there is a huge difference between having unfavorable political views or being greedy (which is a plus for some CEO positions in the minds of their boards and shareholders), and discriminating and actively supporting the removal and prevention of basic civil liberties to a group of people. The first is maybe not ideal but within reason but the other completely unacceptable. Generic âwhat ifâ arguments aside, I refer you to my previously reply to you as to why this is even more important to this specific position at this specific company. I also refer you to Eichâs statements as to why he feels he was no longer in a position to lead mozilla.
having a personal opinion â actively supporting the discrimination against a group of people and the denial of their civil liberties.
(we arenât just talking about a guy and his personal opinion)
3 Likes
Much like your other argument , your examples of gay men against gay marriage donât really add up. One example is a married gay man and they both from a country where civil unions have the same legal implications as a marriage according to Sewell. This is a false equivalency. The same can not be said in the US. If there were some equivalent to marriage in the U.S. many would be satisfied. Regardless, Sewellâs argument falls apart at a glance. Christians donât own the concept of marriage. Marriages happened all the time before Christianity and happen outside of Christianity. Not all marriages have to be Christian . So Sewell is also a bigot and can stick it.
5 Likes
your examples of gay men against gay marriage donât really add up. One example is a married gay man and they both from a country where civil unions have the same legal implications as a marriage according to Sewell.
This sounds like moving the goalposts to me; this is what you originally asked me to do:
I did both of these things, although I canât be expected to provide arguments that I agree with if I donât agree with their basic premise. Brian Sewell claims to have campaigned for many gay rights, but apparently this is one issue he doesnât agree with. Heâs apparently a lapsed Catholic and seems to base his opposition on the cultural Christianity in the UK. Itâs an odd argument, and seems to suggest that we should accept the churchâs traditional definition of marriage because Christian culture has given the UK so many benefits. Itâs an article in the Telegraph, so you should definitely consider the conservative stance of that paper and not just see it as a gay man saying his $0.02. When Elton John made these comments, he was not married but happily living in a civil partnership.
As to the false equivalency, prop 8 referred to California, not the whole of the US. According to Wikipedia at least, domestic partnerships in California offer all of the legal benefits of marriage.
My issue is not with you or @redesignedâs criticisms of the arguments - I made many of the same when Brian Sewellâs article was introduced on a different post. I do object to vilifying someone as a bigot on the basis of a donation alone, and I donât agree that the lack of an explicit apology is damning. Heâs obviously private about his political views and may not want to publicly discuss them, especially as at this point a public apology and commitment to gay rights would sound more like the result of a reeducation program than a free expression of his views.
People hold views for all sorts of reasons, some unfounded. This particular issue is very emotional on both sides and often based on gut feeling rather than solid arguments. Sometimes people have grown up with one view and are surrounded by people who feel the same way, so they support laws promoting that view. Itâs not clear exactly where bigotry starts, but having bad arguments is not necessarily that point. Not everyone who opposes SSM hates gays, not everyone who opposes abortion rights hates women, not everyone who opposes Obamacare hates poor people and not everyone who opposes environmental laws doesnât care about the environment, even if all of those things are positive and opposing them has caused a lot of damage.
1 Like
I largely agree with your general points, but I have a different assessment of the situation.
Why do they oppose same sex marriages then? It doesnât affect them at all unless they have a specific bigotry against same sex married couples existing and being recognized by society. You could argue that is a general form of hatred even if they donât hate any specific gay person. Having the opinion that you arenât for SSM, is one thing. If you arenât for SSM then donât marry someone of the same gender. You opinion can be reflected in your personal choices. The line for bigotry starts when you try to take away same sex couples rights to marry, and force your opinion onto their choices by taking away their human and civil rights. That isnât just an opinion. It is one thing to have an opinion it is another to infringe on other peoples rights because of your opinion. He very much crossed that line.
If the donation is specifically to remove and prohibit the civil liberties of a certain group of people you are discriminating against then, yeah, iâd say that crosses the line. It isnât like he just donated to the tea party, he donated specifically for action on this issue, specifically to bar their rights to marriage. Proposition 8, was a constitutional amendment that specifically outlawed same-sex marriages, that is active discrimination against the rights of a group that he is not a part of.
But, if he came forward and said, hey i was wrong, i made a mistake out of ignorance and intolerance, iâve changed my opinion, this would all be a non-story. Instead he as continually defended his stance. Although to be fair, I do give him credit for realizing that stance makes him unfit to lead a company such as mozilla.
5 Likes
I think some of this comes from broad differences between conservative and liberal lines of thought. I am generalizing, but Iâd say conservatives would see an institution like marriage to be something greater than the individuals forming it. In a traditional marriage, there would be a number of guidelines governing how people entered into the marriage and excluding some couples as unqualified. For example, an open marriage would not be approved of because it attacks the principle of faithfulness, which is seen as foundational to the structure of an institution at the centre of society. Even if the members of an open marriage are ok about it, the wider culture is seen as having a right to define marriage and exclude these practices from authorised marriages. People stand under the principles, not over them, so conservatives will be less likely to change principles based on the experiences of an excluded group.
For some, the issue is not excluding homosexuals from a disputed right, but the denial that a homosexual relationship could ever properly be placed in the category of marriage. In this sense, a civil partnership is a good compromise where the integrity of their view of marriage is preserved, but gay couples can enjoy the same legal benefits as everyone else. It still creates a separate category that is arguably unconstitutional, but many would see this as going as far as they can go to respect LGBT rights while maintaining a distinction between marriage and not-marriage.
Thatâs just my impression from talking to people who seem honest and not bigoted, but continue to reject SSM. Obviously religion is the elephant in the room that I havenât mentioned, but this feeds into the principles > people idea. Many arenât willing to reject everything else for the sake of this issue, nor do they see a more liberal interpretation of the censure of homosexuality in their religion to be justified. One of the reasons I left the church was because I wasnât hopeful that this issue would ever be resolved satisfactorily.
