OkCupid/IAC Employees Donated Thousands to Anti-Gay Marriage Politicians(pastebin.com)
pastebin.com
OkCupid/IAC Employees Donated Thousands to Anti-Gay Marriage Politicians
http://pastebin.com/ekaFQXbE
22 comments
The thing I don't get about this whole faux controversy is since when is it professionally acceptable to discriminate against someone for their private political views and esp. those that might be informed by religious beliefs so long as they don't bring them into the workplace? I mean by the time everyone is done investigating who believes what and donated how much to who there won't be anyone left to work anywhere. This whole thing is just really slimy.
Many of us view being anti-gay just as absolutely unacceptable as being pro-slavery or denying suffrage to women. It's not simply a "political view" in 2014. It's not an opinion. It's flat out wrong and supporters of that backwards mentality reap what they sow.
It would be nice if the world were that black-and-white, but it's not. Plenty of Republicans etc. also believe that abortion, or even contraception provided by your health plan, is "absolutely unacceptable", "flat out wrong" and a "backwards mentality".
But we live in a democracy, where we need to get along. Black-and-white absolutist thinking doesn't really help anyone. You may not think it's "simply a political view" in 2014, but many other people do. Fortunately, we live in a pluralistic society with freedom of expression where we're all allowed to have and share our views, which is the whole basis of democracy.
And this is very different from women's suffrage, because nobody's right to vote, or their participation in the democratic process, is being legally affected here. Other things are being affected, but not people's representation as citizens in a democracy.
But we live in a democracy, where we need to get along. Black-and-white absolutist thinking doesn't really help anyone. You may not think it's "simply a political view" in 2014, but many other people do. Fortunately, we live in a pluralistic society with freedom of expression where we're all allowed to have and share our views, which is the whole basis of democracy.
And this is very different from women's suffrage, because nobody's right to vote, or their participation in the democratic process, is being legally affected here. Other things are being affected, but not people's representation as citizens in a democracy.
Totally agree - well said.
Segregation, marriage inequality, restrictions on abortion and contraception--what do each of these have in common? It's that the government is imposing an arbitrary value system on the behavior of private citizens. This is acceptable when said behavior could harm others. In these other cases, it feels pretty off to have this happening in 2014. (Do not respond to me about fetuses.)
I love when people end an argument with "Do not respond to me about <the obviously controversial part of my opinion>".
The fact is, people from all backgrounds and political viewpoints hold opinions which they view as absolute. Whether that's "being anti-gay is equivalent to being pro-slavery" or "abortion is murder", people are going to disagree even if they are both guided by the same fundamentally good goals.
The fact is, people from all backgrounds and political viewpoints hold opinions which they view as absolute. Whether that's "being anti-gay is equivalent to being pro-slavery" or "abortion is murder", people are going to disagree even if they are both guided by the same fundamentally good goals.
I fully admit that it's controversial, I just don't have the time or the energy to debate it here. (Or anywhere.) The rationale I gave holds up, but good luck debating it.
Abortion ban: government-imposed restrictions on the right to terminate genetically-undesirable fetuses. Which of these criteria should not be allowed: Gender? Height? Lack of physical strength? How about, say, statistically-probable homosexuality?
All is not as it seems when you change the optics (edited, restored).
All is not as it seems when you change the optics (edited, restored).
I admit, those scenarios are almost as odious as they are unbelievable. People already select for height, strength and a host of other genetic characteristics when they mate. But anyways, mother's choice. Her body, her choice. Very simple.
PS I liked the line about optics better.
PS I liked the line about optics better.
Sex-selective abortion is abhorrent, but it's not at all unbelievable. The others are mostly hypothetical - for now - but amniocentesis and genetic testing for specific diseases is a very real thing, and the steady march of GWAS means we will have the rest soon enough.
It's true. We should either let gays and Mormons have their desired marital arrangements or do away with state recognition of marriage altogether.
That's the libertarian stance. If the gov't had nothing to do with marriage and people were free to enter into whatever contract each party agreed to, we wouldn't be wasting time arguing about gay marriage.
Why should we have to "waste time"?
Gay people: We'd like to get married.
Government: Okay, here you go.
It's only because assholes go crazy about it that it's a problem.
Also, gay couples have been doing the "set up a bundle of contracts" thing for years. It's expensive and doesn't actually provide the same protections that marriage provides.
Gay people: We'd like to get married.
Government: Okay, here you go.
It's only because assholes go crazy about it that it's a problem.
Also, gay couples have been doing the "set up a bundle of contracts" thing for years. It's expensive and doesn't actually provide the same protections that marriage provides.
Well, demographics is not exactly fætuses… close though.
Some people justify their intervention in all these issues by claiming that the up-coming generations are everyone‘s future, and needs to be protected as such. Hence many laws to prevent them from harm, most of which I’m sure you adhere to.
The salient cases are often about disagreement about which is the greater harm: being Métis in a race-based, or living in a race-based society? Some (abortion) are about disagreements on what constitutes a child.
I don’t think that you, or rather some other people on the same side as you on such issues, choose to make themselves better persons by disparaging your opponents openly. Like you, they are worried, and inconsistent. And, if you step away from absolutes, they would agree with you on many actual cases. Cognitive dissonance (which, admittedly, happens more often among your opponents) is very painful, and you want to respect that to effectively make the world a better place.
Some people justify their intervention in all these issues by claiming that the up-coming generations are everyone‘s future, and needs to be protected as such. Hence many laws to prevent them from harm, most of which I’m sure you adhere to.
The salient cases are often about disagreement about which is the greater harm: being Métis in a race-based, or living in a race-based society? Some (abortion) are about disagreements on what constitutes a child.
I don’t think that you, or rather some other people on the same side as you on such issues, choose to make themselves better persons by disparaging your opponents openly. Like you, they are worried, and inconsistent. And, if you step away from absolutes, they would agree with you on many actual cases. Cognitive dissonance (which, admittedly, happens more often among your opponents) is very painful, and you want to respect that to effectively make the world a better place.
[deleted]
People seem to miss something from this whole "free speech" thing. Feel free to speak your mind, but that will always invite other people judging you and their interactions with you based on what you say (which is of course perfectly sane).
I'll happily defend your right to anonymously spout homophobic nonsense on 4chan, but as soon as you attach your name (and a thousand bucks) to discriminating people based on their sexual orientation, I'll exercise my right to shun you for it.
I'll happily defend your right to anonymously spout homophobic nonsense on 4chan, but as soon as you attach your name (and a thousand bucks) to discriminating people based on their sexual orientation, I'll exercise my right to shun you for it.
> I'll exercise my right to shun you for it.
That right is, presumably, something you revoke when joining a ‘open-minded and tolerant’ community -- something that both Mozilla and OkCupid asked their employees to do.
That’s why, to justify shunning from someone within that group, you need to qualify supporting Prop 8 as abhorrent: something outside of Free speech.
I’ve posted a few comments already, so I feel the need to clarify my position: I have an opinion; I never shared it with anyone, ever. What I know however, from knowing many people on any sides of however you want to split this, is best said here:
http://imgur.com/r/AdviceAnimals/YstKo08
That right is, presumably, something you revoke when joining a ‘open-minded and tolerant’ community -- something that both Mozilla and OkCupid asked their employees to do.
That’s why, to justify shunning from someone within that group, you need to qualify supporting Prop 8 as abhorrent: something outside of Free speech.
I’ve posted a few comments already, so I feel the need to clarify my position: I have an opinion; I never shared it with anyone, ever. What I know however, from knowing many people on any sides of however you want to split this, is best said here:
http://imgur.com/r/AdviceAnimals/YstKo08
Would I have happily embraced slavery if born at the time? Not a doubt in the world. Surely my peers would have considered themselves open-minded and tolerant just as much.
Here is what this comes down to: is there an overall shift in societies sentiment on this issue towards tolerance and against discrimination? If yes, you don't want to be standing on the wrong side of history by publicly expressing your disagreement.
Here is what this comes down to: is there an overall shift in societies sentiment on this issue towards tolerance and against discrimination? If yes, you don't want to be standing on the wrong side of history by publicly expressing your disagreement.
> If yes, you don't want to be standing on the wrong side of history by publicly expressing your disagreement.
Lincoln was very much on the wrong side of history, and even in his time many abolitionists argued that it was horribly immoral to allow slavery where it existed, or to end slavery only in military-occupied areas of the Confederacy. Should we have shunned him then?
This is exactly why I don't like black/white mob rule, FWIW. Life's too complex to be reduced to a set of tripwires that define our behavior. Evolution has provided us all with the most advanced processing devices on this planet, we should all feel free to use them to examine a given case on its own merits.
Lincoln was very much on the wrong side of history, and even in his time many abolitionists argued that it was horribly immoral to allow slavery where it existed, or to end slavery only in military-occupied areas of the Confederacy. Should we have shunned him then?
This is exactly why I don't like black/white mob rule, FWIW. Life's too complex to be reduced to a set of tripwires that define our behavior. Evolution has provided us all with the most advanced processing devices on this planet, we should all feel free to use them to examine a given case on its own merits.
I know… I’m just trying to defend the good side, which is always the one listening first.
As for history, it’s a forgiving mistress: always remember that the one absolute, un-impeachable moral hero of all modern history was an openly incestuous child molestor, and that all his friends and relatives begged him daily to stop.
As for history, it’s a forgiving mistress: always remember that the one absolute, un-impeachable moral hero of all modern history was an openly incestuous child molestor, and that all his friends and relatives begged him daily to stop.
Okay, I'll bite: who are you talking about here?
Gandhi, though the claim may be exaggerated.
Hard to find a good source, but here's something: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2521/did-mahatma-ga...
Hard to find a good source, but here's something: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2521/did-mahatma-ga...
This does impact a person's federal rights in the democracy that they participate in though. Specifically, over 1,100 rights are denied to couples who love each other but happen to be the same gender.
All men are created equal, right?
Gay couples are disadvantaged at a federal level. Being able to vote doesn't change that.
All men are created equal, right?
Gay couples are disadvantaged at a federal level. Being able to vote doesn't change that.
certainly well written, and you are right nobodies' right to vote is being abridged here. however the constitution of the United states affords us many rights one of which is the right to due process and equal protection(14th amendment).
wikipedia> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection has been used repeatedly in the courts as a way to show the clear and un-bar-able "right to contract" protecting companies and individuals right to make agreements and have them be enforced and recognized by the state.
looking at the nuts and bolts way that the state approaches "marriage" as a form of contract similar to a corporate merger: tax differences, medical rules regulations, inheritance, general ownership of property. Baring an entire group of people from this right to contract is very clearly an abridgment of those rights and the protections brought by that form of contract.
This is why this issue has made such clearer and easy headway in the courts where the rulings are based more clearly on the law it self and the precedent of situation.
your argument though well written is more of a red herring fallacy trying to distract from a very real issue that you paint as more serious to trivialize what is really an important issue in our system of governance.
The women's suffrage movement was more than just the right to vote it spoke to how we define equality in this country. And this modern incarnation of that same discussion (which has taken many shapes over the years color, disability, language) is similarly important though it may feel distant to YOU because it impacts a sub-segment of the population not as large as say 50%.
wikipedia> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection has been used repeatedly in the courts as a way to show the clear and un-bar-able "right to contract" protecting companies and individuals right to make agreements and have them be enforced and recognized by the state.
looking at the nuts and bolts way that the state approaches "marriage" as a form of contract similar to a corporate merger: tax differences, medical rules regulations, inheritance, general ownership of property. Baring an entire group of people from this right to contract is very clearly an abridgment of those rights and the protections brought by that form of contract.
This is why this issue has made such clearer and easy headway in the courts where the rulings are based more clearly on the law it self and the precedent of situation.
your argument though well written is more of a red herring fallacy trying to distract from a very real issue that you paint as more serious to trivialize what is really an important issue in our system of governance.
The women's suffrage movement was more than just the right to vote it spoke to how we define equality in this country. And this modern incarnation of that same discussion (which has taken many shapes over the years color, disability, language) is similarly important though it may feel distant to YOU because it impacts a sub-segment of the population not as large as say 50%.
OkCupid is not advocating restricting Eich's right to participate in civic society, to spout his hate, or even his ability to spend money to promote restricting the lives of others.
They are simply and clearly pointing out that he seeks "to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration" They don't want to associate with him, and they are recommending that other people avoid doing so.
OkCupid calling out a powerful person on his despicable behavior does not threaten democracy.
They are simply and clearly pointing out that he seeks "to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration" They don't want to associate with him, and they are recommending that other people avoid doing so.
OkCupid calling out a powerful person on his despicable behavior does not threaten democracy.
OkCupid is not calling out Eich personally, but Mozilla because of Eich’s individual position. There is a gap there that they, as an institution, decided to bridge. If you apply the same brush to OkCupid, their don’t sound so different they can give a lesson they needn’t listen too.
Democracy is not threatened in this debate -- however, consistency might not be on OkCupid’s side.
Democracy is not threatened in this debate -- however, consistency might not be on OkCupid’s side.
I'm liberal, and I believe society should be as permissive as it can stand to be with regard to behavior, choices, and the kinds of lifestyles we can create. But I'm not an idiot. Abortion is perhaps the only thing you could have used as an argument here. It's obvious to me why people have a problem with abortion. Even people who had one probably didn't like it. But I don't care enough about it to try to prevent anyone from having one.
Gay rights aren't abortion. Enough people believe it is exactly like every other precedent for civil rights, that you can't really seriously hold onto this argument anymore. Sorry. And absolutely nobody said it had to be about voting, so where did you pull that out of?
Gay rights aren't abortion. Enough people believe it is exactly like every other precedent for civil rights, that you can't really seriously hold onto this argument anymore. Sorry. And absolutely nobody said it had to be about voting, so where did you pull that out of?
I've always thought "anti-gay marriage = anti-gay" as being a false equivocation. Can someone convince me otherwise?
Heck, at the very least there are people who are anti-marriage (from a political POV), for whom it would be discriminatory to exclude gay marriage from that position.
You cite slavery. Was every single person who was against emancipation "pro-slavery"? Was there no room for nuance? I mean maybe some people really didn't like slavery, but hated the prospect of civil war even more.
Heck, at the very least there are people who are anti-marriage (from a political POV), for whom it would be discriminatory to exclude gay marriage from that position.
You cite slavery. Was every single person who was against emancipation "pro-slavery"? Was there no room for nuance? I mean maybe some people really didn't like slavery, but hated the prospect of civil war even more.
Because marriage isn't just some symbolic institution. Denying marriage to couples radically, unequivocally, directly harms them in legal matters like being able to make medical decisions during emergencies, property rights, benefits at work.
So when someone is "anti-gay marriage", then yes they are taking a position that will harm gay folks. So yes, it is anti-gay.
So when someone is "anti-gay marriage", then yes they are taking a position that will harm gay folks. So yes, it is anti-gay.
And yet, put it that way to a gay marriage opponent, and I guarantee you a sizable portion would respond as follows:
A: You're against gay marriage? So you don't think gay partners should share the same legal status when making medical decisions, in property rights, or work benefits?
B: Wow, I never thought about it that way. No, I think they should share all of those benefits.
A: So you're for gay marriage?
B: No, I just think all of those rights should be granted outside of the marital context.
A: You're against gay marriage? So you don't think gay partners should share the same legal status when making medical decisions, in property rights, or work benefits?
B: Wow, I never thought about it that way. No, I think they should share all of those benefits.
A: So you're for gay marriage?
B: No, I just think all of those rights should be granted outside of the marital context.
Exactly. Reading this thread, I get the distinct impression that many posters have never even interacted with someone who disagrees with them on some of these issues. As someone who grew up in the midwest, I've seen this exact exchange happen countless times.
That's the frustrating part about this issue...it's basically all semantics. The simple solution would have been to remove all recognition of marriage by the government and replace it with the concept of civil unions between any two consenting adults. There shouldn't even be a requirement of a romantic relationship...why should the fact that two people have sex or live together have any bearing on how they file their tax returns, how medical decisions are made or how property is disposed of? Hell, there's plenty of married people who are separated and no longer having sex or live together and yet they enjoy the legal perks of marriage.
Once you limit the government's role to recognizing a contract, albeit one that's common and standardized, between two adults, marriage becomes the domain of the church. If your church wants to deny marriage to homosexuals, the first amendment gives them the right to do that.
Once you limit the government's role to recognizing a contract, albeit one that's common and standardized, between two adults, marriage becomes the domain of the church. If your church wants to deny marriage to homosexuals, the first amendment gives them the right to do that.
Your "simple solution" would require the invalidation of all straight people's marriages. Politically, that's about as toxic as proudly saying you are going to be building a pre-school on top of a nuclear waste dump.
I wrote a long rant about this a while back: http://tommorris.org/posts/2555
I wrote a long rant about this a while back: http://tommorris.org/posts/2555
Riding on the back of the bus gets you to the same bus stops, clearly. Yet we rejected Jim Crow laws decades ago as unsuitable in our modern society.
Letting some citizens ride on the 'civil union' bus, and others on the 'marriage' bus is what's at issue. Its still wrong to discriminate in this way, especially if the majority vote to give themselves the better seats.
I imagine its hard to feel the humiliation of sitting in the back of the bus, if you never have to do it yourself. It took Rosa Parks to make it plain to all of us, that the institution was racist, intentionally belittling and wrong.
Letting some citizens ride on the 'civil union' bus, and others on the 'marriage' bus is what's at issue. Its still wrong to discriminate in this way, especially if the majority vote to give themselves the better seats.
I imagine its hard to feel the humiliation of sitting in the back of the bus, if you never have to do it yourself. It took Rosa Parks to make it plain to all of us, that the institution was racist, intentionally belittling and wrong.
I know there are sizeable number of people who support giving gay couples all the property, legal, etc. rights under "civil union" umbrella but oppose calling it "marriage" under religious or cultural or any other notions. I personally think governmental sanction on marriage is a problem here and as soon as people are ready to do the right thing - meaning, take government permission out of this voluntary contract and leave the government only to be notified that such contract happened and not permit or deny it - all the problem goes away. But I certainly can see that these people I describe above is not for limiting legal rights of gay people in medical decisions, property rights, etc. but they object to that being called "marriage". This is their position, and denying its existence does not really help anybody.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gays+who+oppose+gay+marriage
Easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys when you think in black and white, isn't it?
Easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys when you think in black and white, isn't it?
ywgdana, your definition of marriage is joined with legal matters, but don't assume others will share the same definition. Little girls don't dream of having "property rights" they dream of "getting married".
And you're wrong that anti-gay marriage = anti-gay. I take offence to that.
I don't give a damn about marriage in general. But I DO give a damn about gay folks, their rights and equality.
I have very dear gay friends, and care about them deeply. But I don't put marriage and their rights to make medical decisions in the same boat, and nor should you. Instead, you should be voting and fighting for those legal rights to be extended to same-sex couples, and leave marriage completely out of the equation.
"Marriage" is an old-fashioned tradition, very much about a bride and groom and the beginnings of starting a family, kids and all the rest. That's what it is.
And you're wrong that anti-gay marriage = anti-gay. I take offence to that.
I don't give a damn about marriage in general. But I DO give a damn about gay folks, their rights and equality.
I have very dear gay friends, and care about them deeply. But I don't put marriage and their rights to make medical decisions in the same boat, and nor should you. Instead, you should be voting and fighting for those legal rights to be extended to same-sex couples, and leave marriage completely out of the equation.
"Marriage" is an old-fashioned tradition, very much about a bride and groom and the beginnings of starting a family, kids and all the rest. That's what it is.
> Was every single person who was against emancipation "pro-slavery"?
Yes! What other position could there be? You either think human beings can be owned as property or you don't.
I guess theoretically you could have favored some sort of gradual emancipation over immediate freedom, and there were some at the time who argued that freed slaves should have been returned to Africa.
But those are still just variations of an anti-slavery position.
You can't be against emancipation without being pro-slavery any more than you can be against animal cruelty but pro-dog fighting.
Yes! What other position could there be? You either think human beings can be owned as property or you don't.
I guess theoretically you could have favored some sort of gradual emancipation over immediate freedom, and there were some at the time who argued that freed slaves should have been returned to Africa.
But those are still just variations of an anti-slavery position.
You can't be against emancipation without being pro-slavery any more than you can be against animal cruelty but pro-dog fighting.
Sorry, to be clear I meant "against emancipation" as "against a particular political proposal to enact emancipation". Maybe call it "capital 'e' Emancipation", for my lack of knowledge of American history. Obviously you're right that to be against the idea of emancipation is to be pro-slavery.
But to oppose a specific political position is much more nuanced. There were many people who opposed Obamacare on the grounds that it didn't go far enough. You couldn't automatically say they were against universal health care.
Many people oppose legislation that they would otherwise support because they are rolled up in an omnibus bill they can't support, or because the devil in the details would make it counterproductive to their cause.
But to oppose a specific political position is much more nuanced. There were many people who opposed Obamacare on the grounds that it didn't go far enough. You couldn't automatically say they were against universal health care.
Many people oppose legislation that they would otherwise support because they are rolled up in an omnibus bill they can't support, or because the devil in the details would make it counterproductive to their cause.
Go watch any of the videos of gay husbands and wives who were denied access to the hospital to witness their loved ones die.
That gay men and women weren't allowed to bring their partners into the country is another major one.
Edit: Thank you for the downvote whomever you were. Mission accomplished; you managed to hurt.
That gay men and women weren't allowed to bring their partners into the country is another major one.
Edit: Thank you for the downvote whomever you were. Mission accomplished; you managed to hurt.
You misunderstand; I never said I was against gay marriage, and don't need convincing.
I just think people need to be more careful when they ascribe motives (being "anti-gay") to political views that might incidentally oppress people ("anti-gay marriage").
That kind of in-your-face aggression makes people defensive and withdrawn, rather than engaged and ready to be convinced.
It's like if someone is for strict crack cocaine punishments, and somebody just saying "well being blatantly racist toward African Americans is unacceptable". Maybe they just hadn't yet connected the dots from their political position to the incidental impact it has on people.
I just think people need to be more careful when they ascribe motives (being "anti-gay") to political views that might incidentally oppress people ("anti-gay marriage").
That kind of in-your-face aggression makes people defensive and withdrawn, rather than engaged and ready to be convinced.
It's like if someone is for strict crack cocaine punishments, and somebody just saying "well being blatantly racist toward African Americans is unacceptable". Maybe they just hadn't yet connected the dots from their political position to the incidental impact it has on people.
Crack cocaine vs African Americans is rather more indirect though.
Being anti-gay marriage directly means "I want gay people to not have the following rights: x, y and z," and in that sense it is directly anti-gay.
It's not as severe as criminalizing being gay or even putting the death penalty on it, but it is definitely anti-gay.
P.S. I never meant to imply you were against gay marriage; was just pointing you to the most convincing argument.
Being anti-gay marriage directly means "I want gay people to not have the following rights: x, y and z," and in that sense it is directly anti-gay.
It's not as severe as criminalizing being gay or even putting the death penalty on it, but it is definitely anti-gay.
P.S. I never meant to imply you were against gay marriage; was just pointing you to the most convincing argument.
Yikes, people obviously feel strongly about this as they are downvoting comments clearly made in good faith.
> Being anti-gay marriage directly means "I want gay people to not have the following rights: x, y and z," and in that sense it is directly anti-gay.
It is more direct, but not absolutely direct. People get religious over the word "marriage", which shouldn't be surprising because in a lot of ways it's primarily a religious concept. A lot of them actually don't mind if gay people have rights x, y, and z. But by framing the whole conversation around "marriage", it bypasses the question of rights for a lot of people. It jumps right to challenging their long-held, internalized view of what the word "marriage" means.
And that might be an important thing to challenge! But for a lot of people it's a separate issue from the rights question.
> Being anti-gay marriage directly means "I want gay people to not have the following rights: x, y and z," and in that sense it is directly anti-gay.
It is more direct, but not absolutely direct. People get religious over the word "marriage", which shouldn't be surprising because in a lot of ways it's primarily a religious concept. A lot of them actually don't mind if gay people have rights x, y, and z. But by framing the whole conversation around "marriage", it bypasses the question of rights for a lot of people. It jumps right to challenging their long-held, internalized view of what the word "marriage" means.
And that might be an important thing to challenge! But for a lot of people it's a separate issue from the rights question.
I agree that marriage and 'rights conferred by marriage' could have been split.
That's actually how gay marriage was introduced in the Netherlands, through something called a 'cohabitation-agreement.'
That's actually how gay marriage was introduced in the Netherlands, through something called a 'cohabitation-agreement.'
My experience is that a lot of the people who opposed official recognition of gay couples don’t connect the two, even when faced with such a case. Few people have been in a situation when that actually was a problem, grave enough to require family presence, and the family would refuse to share information, or the nurses would block the way.
The principle of it is wrong, but opponents don’t connect the dots.
The principle of it is wrong, but opponents don’t connect the dots.
Even Lincoln defended laws which required Northern free states to return escaped slaves to their owners in the South.
What's the reasoning for denying same-sex marriage?
Why are gay citizens equal enough to have equal tax laws but not equal marriage laws?
Why are gay citizens equal enough to have equal tax laws but not equal marriage laws?
There are too common arguments:
One is religious, and I doubt you’d sympathise with that; let’s just say an easy way out of that one would be to defining all civil unions as such, but it actually would miss some point.
Another one is biologic: heterosexual couples are expected to have children. Of course, that should mean that couples without shouldn’t benefit, but they might be considered saving money while planning, and there is the embarrassing debate about what to do with people marrying in their 40s… That goes against the increasingly visible case of gay couples adopting, or using donations/surrogates. But the idea is: that tax benefit and public recognition is a natalist argument.
One is religious, and I doubt you’d sympathise with that; let’s just say an easy way out of that one would be to defining all civil unions as such, but it actually would miss some point.
Another one is biologic: heterosexual couples are expected to have children. Of course, that should mean that couples without shouldn’t benefit, but they might be considered saving money while planning, and there is the embarrassing debate about what to do with people marrying in their 40s… That goes against the increasingly visible case of gay couples adopting, or using donations/surrogates. But the idea is: that tax benefit and public recognition is a natalist argument.
And the important point here isn't the validity of these arguments, it's that people do use them to inform their position on gay marriage, and that that is orthogonal to being "anti-gay".
I’ll jump on my militant stead now, and attack you bitterly on one of the things I actually care deeply about: the abuse of the idea of ‘perpendicular’ in non-obvious algebraic context.
(I’m like that: you can way what you want is subjective, but Statistical methodology… I instantly switch to heavy weaponry and my loud voice.)
If you mean conceptually independant: absolutely. Social recognition of a homosexual orientation has been associated with many choice patterns, most of which didn’t include marriage, mainly because that hasn’t been a historically considered model: priesthood, separation of family ties and sexual pleasures, even projection onto educational purposes…
If you mean “statistically not correlated”, then you are wrong: there is a high correlation between people holding unambiguously homophobic position, and them opposing same-sex marriage.
You can’t consider one in abstract without the other.
Let’s take an example: There is little logical connection between being rich and behaving like a jerk, yet… psychological experiments tend to indicate the former appears to cause the later. If you want a more honest society and a fair market, that correlation needs to be considered to inform reforms. There is little formal connexion between coding and favoring libertarian ideas, yet… that happens a lot, and it does influence the role of technology in society. If you held sincerely an opinion that is mainly shared by jerks, that’s fine if you are not one -- but you can’t expect to defend it without some preliminaries; not excuses, just precautions.
(I’m like that: you can way what you want is subjective, but Statistical methodology… I instantly switch to heavy weaponry and my loud voice.)
If you mean conceptually independant: absolutely. Social recognition of a homosexual orientation has been associated with many choice patterns, most of which didn’t include marriage, mainly because that hasn’t been a historically considered model: priesthood, separation of family ties and sexual pleasures, even projection onto educational purposes…
If you mean “statistically not correlated”, then you are wrong: there is a high correlation between people holding unambiguously homophobic position, and them opposing same-sex marriage.
You can’t consider one in abstract without the other.
Let’s take an example: There is little logical connection between being rich and behaving like a jerk, yet… psychological experiments tend to indicate the former appears to cause the later. If you want a more honest society and a fair market, that correlation needs to be considered to inform reforms. There is little formal connexion between coding and favoring libertarian ideas, yet… that happens a lot, and it does influence the role of technology in society. If you held sincerely an opinion that is mainly shared by jerks, that’s fine if you are not one -- but you can’t expect to defend it without some preliminaries; not excuses, just precautions.
I don't understand how same-sex marriage threatens childbirth if same-sex couples couldn't birth them anyway.
It doesn’t, but it appropriates an institution meant to protect childbirth for a different purpose. It denatures something seen as precious.
That can seem meaningless to a liberal, but conservatives have a heighten sense of ‘purity’, and tend to vehemently refuse misappropriations or risk of ‘contamination’, sometimes beyond the scale of the real issue. Examples in the US include: ‘sacred’ money meant for church should not be taxed by secular government, or, benefits meant for people in need should not go to undeserving people; one should not indulge people who commit crimes; young impressionable teens should not frequent lost souls, etc.
And to be clear: yes, that should mean people shouldn’t marry after menopause -- rationalisation of that include continuity, traditions or even direct reference to Abraham and Sarah. Details are probably more individual.
What matters is that you understand there is a consistency to the over-all idea, in spite of the apparent contradictions, and you can’t move forward unless you make sense of it. It‘s the classic exercice in rhetoric of being able to convincingly prove the opposite of your position in order to be able to defend it.
That can seem meaningless to a liberal, but conservatives have a heighten sense of ‘purity’, and tend to vehemently refuse misappropriations or risk of ‘contamination’, sometimes beyond the scale of the real issue. Examples in the US include: ‘sacred’ money meant for church should not be taxed by secular government, or, benefits meant for people in need should not go to undeserving people; one should not indulge people who commit crimes; young impressionable teens should not frequent lost souls, etc.
And to be clear: yes, that should mean people shouldn’t marry after menopause -- rationalisation of that include continuity, traditions or even direct reference to Abraham and Sarah. Details are probably more individual.
What matters is that you understand there is a consistency to the over-all idea, in spite of the apparent contradictions, and you can’t move forward unless you make sense of it. It‘s the classic exercice in rhetoric of being able to convincingly prove the opposite of your position in order to be able to defend it.
Better question: Why should your relationship status give you better tax benefits than being single?
Mutual care. If you are married (or in a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever separate-but-equal code word people want to use to grant gay people almost-but-not-equal rights), you engage in mutual care for one another. You look after each other when sick, you cover for each other's temporary financial shortcomings (when they lose a job for instance). You provide a whole lot of care that if you weren't together would be something that society would have to provide, especially in older age.
Take my paternal grandparents. When my grandmother was still alive, the two of them happily lived together and cared for one another even though my grandfather was at that point experiencing the early onset of dementia.
When she died, my grandfather had to go into residential care, paid for partly by their pension, partly by my parents and uncles, and partly through the subsidy that the state provide for elderly people going into care homes.
The more people who are able to live together in a mutually caring relationship like a long-term marriage, the less people need to go into care homes meaning the less subsidy needs to go into that kind of care for the elderly.
Marriage has a societal benefit in promoting that kind of mutual care, regardless of the gender of the partners and regardless of whether you have kids (and, hell, same-sex couples can and do have kids, so that's a shit argument anyway).
Could you set up another system to provide that kind of benefit? Sure. But this is the system we have and it should be available to long-term gay couples as it is for straight couples.
Take my paternal grandparents. When my grandmother was still alive, the two of them happily lived together and cared for one another even though my grandfather was at that point experiencing the early onset of dementia.
When she died, my grandfather had to go into residential care, paid for partly by their pension, partly by my parents and uncles, and partly through the subsidy that the state provide for elderly people going into care homes.
The more people who are able to live together in a mutually caring relationship like a long-term marriage, the less people need to go into care homes meaning the less subsidy needs to go into that kind of care for the elderly.
Marriage has a societal benefit in promoting that kind of mutual care, regardless of the gender of the partners and regardless of whether you have kids (and, hell, same-sex couples can and do have kids, so that's a shit argument anyway).
Could you set up another system to provide that kind of benefit? Sure. But this is the system we have and it should be available to long-term gay couples as it is for straight couples.
IMHO, children. Married couples get tax benefits as an incentive to get married and have kids. I find it weird that this argument has so far been completely ignored by either side in the pro/anti-gay marriage discussion (at least as far as I've seen).
Disclaimer: I'm single, so I'm not arguing for these benefits. That's just what I always thought the reason was.
Disclaimer: I'm single, so I'm not arguing for these benefits. That's just what I always thought the reason was.
> Married couples get tax benefits as an incentive to get married and have kids.
Married couples in the US most get tax benefits to the extent to which they have a significant imbalance in income, and it seems to be a lot more connected to the idea of traditional division of labor (one partner working in the trade economy while the other provides in-home support for that partner) than children, per se.
They are tax benefits that directly subsidize children, but they aren't conditioned on marriage.
> I find it weird that this argument has so far been completely ignored by either side in the pro/anti-gay marriage discussion (at least as far as I've seen).
The idea that the civil benefits of marriage are inherently tied to the purpose of promoting reproduction are rather central arguments in the anti-same-sex-marriage camp; this was, in fact, the main argument for Prop. 8's constitutionality offered by its proponents.
Married couples in the US most get tax benefits to the extent to which they have a significant imbalance in income, and it seems to be a lot more connected to the idea of traditional division of labor (one partner working in the trade economy while the other provides in-home support for that partner) than children, per se.
They are tax benefits that directly subsidize children, but they aren't conditioned on marriage.
> I find it weird that this argument has so far been completely ignored by either side in the pro/anti-gay marriage discussion (at least as far as I've seen).
The idea that the civil benefits of marriage are inherently tied to the purpose of promoting reproduction are rather central arguments in the anti-same-sex-marriage camp; this was, in fact, the main argument for Prop. 8's constitutionality offered by its proponents.
> The idea that the civil benefits of marriage are inherently tied to the purpose of promoting reproduction are rather central arguments in the anti-same-sex-marriage camp; this was, in fact, the main argument for Prop. 8's constitutionality offered by its proponents.
My apologies then, I haven't followed the gay marriage discussion in general, only the discussion about Brendan Eich.
My apologies then, I haven't followed the gay marriage discussion in general, only the discussion about Brendan Eich.
Yeah the children thing is a red herring. Couples may get married in every state who are past the child-bearing age, or even infertile.
Not to mention that you get special consideration / tax treatment from the federal government if you have kids regardless of marital status. For example you don't have to be married to claim children as dependents. The marriage [benefits are for children]/children angle is wrong therefore wrong in two respects.
Exactly! My cousins are raising 3 foster kids (now adopted) and their taxes reflect that. So definitely the civil union thing can handle that.
The injustice is simply in the sit-in-the-back-of-the-bus thing - that a lesbian couple should be stamped 'civil union' just so everybody knows they're not as good. Its Jim Crow all over again.
The injustice is simply in the sit-in-the-back-of-the-bus thing - that a lesbian couple should be stamped 'civil union' just so everybody knows they're not as good. Its Jim Crow all over again.
We have a lot of shortages in this world, but human beings aren't one of them. Any incentive for procreating is, at best, antiquated and, at worst, contributing to the overpopulation of the planet.
That's true in the 21st century, but it wasn't true for most of humanity's history. In addition, there was always a population-level competition between countries (you out-breed the other guys, then conquer them by brute force). I'm not sure whether in the age of jet fighters, strike drones and nukes this competition makes sense anymore.
Maybe, yes and no, respectively.
Yeah slavery was ok, as long as you didn't have to be one.
Even if this were true (which it isn't), the slippery slope argument most definitely applies here. Are you going to reject the veneration of our founding fathers because they held slaves? What if a company has middle managers who are against same sex marriage, or engineers? Do we boycott them as well? You are advocating for intellectual puritanism in the name of protection of diversity -- an utterly incoherent position.
Also, we're talking about political speech from many years ago, for a cause that the majority of Californians passed -- and, lest we forget, President Obama, liberal hero he is, did not support gay marriage until 2012. Many, many religious conservatives (hundreds of millions of them, in fact) would argue against your conflation of anti-gay marriage with anti-gay. And just because you seem unable to fathom dissenting views on this issue doesn't mean they don't exist.
Also, we're talking about political speech from many years ago, for a cause that the majority of Californians passed -- and, lest we forget, President Obama, liberal hero he is, did not support gay marriage until 2012. Many, many religious conservatives (hundreds of millions of them, in fact) would argue against your conflation of anti-gay marriage with anti-gay. And just because you seem unable to fathom dissenting views on this issue doesn't mean they don't exist.
"anti-gay" is an oversimplification. Eich gave money to a campaign opposing the legalization of same sex marriage. That's a far cry from anti-gay. He may very well be anti-gay, whatever it is that means, but this particular donation does not equate to that sentiment.
Look, I'm as much for gay rights as the next dude, but what kind of world are you trying to create by cornering people who hold opinions different than yours? Not cool.
Reading your comment, the word 'witch hunt' comes to mind. Just because they wronged you doesn't mean you wrong them too.
Reading your comment, the word 'witch hunt' comes to mind. Just because they wronged you doesn't mean you wrong them too.
I think their point was to expose the hypocrisy of okcupid putting up an anti-firefox splash screen.
Not so sure about "what kind of world", but these sorts of things, including the infinite extension of "the personal is the political", are setting up the conditions for our cold civil war to get hot. Which will be much worst than things currently are, and will lead a "kind of world" that history tells us will almost certainly be worse than what we had before.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
There is a vast difference between feeling strongly about an individual who feels strongly against folks who are gay, and judging anyone and everyone based upon their political views.
The latter comes from a lack of empathy. One sees the label and stops seeing the person. That lack of empathy is exactly what drives hatred and bigotry.
I'm not saying doing so is hypocritical. For conflicts like this to come to an end, all parties need to connect to individuals rather than knee-jerk reacting.
There is a vast difference between feeling strongly about an individual who feels strongly against folks who are gay, and judging anyone and everyone based upon their political views.
The latter comes from a lack of empathy. One sees the label and stops seeing the person. That lack of empathy is exactly what drives hatred and bigotry.
I'm not saying doing so is hypocritical. For conflicts like this to come to an end, all parties need to connect to individuals rather than knee-jerk reacting.
Then why does that not follow to followers of Christianity or Judaism for instance, given that both religions do not tolerate homosexuality? Should we get rid of those people in the workplace as well?
> Then why does that not follow to followers of Christianity or Judaism for instance, given that both religions do not tolerate homosexuality?
"Christianity" and "Judaism" are not monolithic institutions and substantial subsets of both tolerate (or actually accept, which isn't the same thing) homosexuality.
"Christianity" and "Judaism" are not monolithic institutions and substantial subsets of both tolerate (or actually accept, which isn't the same thing) homosexuality.
Religions change over time. Traditional Judaism and early Christianity both allowed slavery and had laws governing it. Today they completely abhor the notion of slavery. The current pope is backing off on Catholicism's stance on homosexuality.
There are different kinds of slavery. Nearly all systems throughout history treated slaves better than American slavery did. Slavery in the law given to Israel back then was not racist, it was not usually permanent (all slaves were freed every 7 years unless they chose to stay), and the slaves still had some rights and protections. So even someone who supported that kind of slavery could still be against American-style slavery.
I don't know about Judaism, but homosexuality is not something that is explicity banned in Christianity. Yeah there are some bible passages against it, but there are also bible passages condoning slavery, polygamy, forced marriage etc. If one were to be a strict adherent to the bible one would have to take some far-out stances on some issues.
Truth is that just because there are some parts of a religion that may support discrimination or other negative behavior, doesn't mean followers of that religion have to agree with that. Many people ignore the parts they don't agree with.
Truth is that just because there are some parts of a religion that may support discrimination or other negative behavior, doesn't mean followers of that religion have to agree with that. Many people ignore the parts they don't agree with.
Correction.
Religions do not tolerate or not-tolerate. Religions are social constructs that only appear to make choices, often when it is convenient for individuals. Individuals tolerate or not tolerate. There are plenty of devout, gay Christians and Jews. They might have a hard time with their faith and their community, but they are there.
The responsibility is on the individual; saying that "my religions says otherwise" is not impeccable.
Religions do not tolerate or not-tolerate. Religions are social constructs that only appear to make choices, often when it is convenient for individuals. Individuals tolerate or not tolerate. There are plenty of devout, gay Christians and Jews. They might have a hard time with their faith and their community, but they are there.
The responsibility is on the individual; saying that "my religions says otherwise" is not impeccable.
I don't think you realize that there are (quite a few) people in the country who think being pro-gay-marriage is absolutely unacceptable.
Until nearly 100% of the population accepts it as a basic and obvious axiom, it does not even remotely have the same status as being pro-slavery or denying suffrage to women.
Until nearly 100% of the population accepts it as a basic and obvious axiom, it does not even remotely have the same status as being pro-slavery or denying suffrage to women.
Your argument is that no one was ever in support of slavery, or in support of denying women the right to vote?
That is a bit ridiculous, you realize that, correct?
That is a bit ridiculous, you realize that, correct?
No, that is not what I was saying at all.
Go to any of the thousands of rural communities in the United States, especially in the midwest, and you will find many people who will strongly stand by their opinion that gay marriage should not be legal.
Just because you believe that gay rights are as fundamental as women's suffrage does not mean that, as a political issue, gay rights are as decided nationwide as women's suffrage.
Go to any of the thousands of rural communities in the United States, especially in the midwest, and you will find many people who will strongly stand by their opinion that gay marriage should not be legal.
Just because you believe that gay rights are as fundamental as women's suffrage does not mean that, as a political issue, gay rights are as decided nationwide as women's suffrage.
Women's suffrage, many, many years ago, would have been in the same boat that gay rights are now. Go back many years before that, and slavery would be similarly as controversial. Do you not understand that?
Saying that gay rights aren't as fundamental of an issue because it's not as cut and dry today as women's suffrage and slavery are today is patently ridiculous. Those issues have had decades to pass from controversial to relatively settled to settled.
Age of an issue does not dictate importance.
Saying that gay rights aren't as fundamental of an issue because it's not as cut and dry today as women's suffrage and slavery are today is patently ridiculous. Those issues have had decades to pass from controversial to relatively settled to settled.
Age of an issue does not dictate importance.
> Saying that gay rights aren't as fundamental of an issue because it's not as cut and dry today as women's suffrage and slavery are today is patently ridiculous.
That's really not what I wrote at all, though.
That's really not what I wrote at all, though.
"Just because you believe that gay rights are as fundamental as women's suffrage does not mean that, as a political issue, gay rights are as decided nationwide as women's suffrage."
That's exactly what that part of your sentence says, unless I am reading this incorrectly.
That's exactly what that part of your sentence says, unless I am reading this incorrectly.
I think you're reading it incorrectly. You're interpreting it backwards from what I intended.
X = "you believe that gay rights are as fundamental as women's suffrage"
Y = "gay rights are as decided nationwide as women's suffrage"
All I wrote is that X does not imply Y. You seen to be interpreting it, though, as (not Y) implies (not X), the contrapositive of which is X does imply Y, which is basically the opposite of what I meant.
X = "you believe that gay rights are as fundamental as women's suffrage"
Y = "gay rights are as decided nationwide as women's suffrage"
All I wrote is that X does not imply Y. You seen to be interpreting it, though, as (not Y) implies (not X), the contrapositive of which is X does imply Y, which is basically the opposite of what I meant.
It absolutely does have the same status for those who are on the right side of the argument (the one that will certainly be vindicated by history). The people who are in the right don't have to wait until the slow people catch up, in order to be right.
My comment was in regard to the present-day political status of the issue. With that in mind...
> for those who are on the right side of the argument
In the US, women's suffrage and slavery do not ever need to be qualified by phrases like this. So really, the very way in which you had to phrase that sentence invalidates the point you're trying to make.
> (the one that will certainly be vindicated by history)
The most likely future political status of the issue is not the same as the present-day political status.
> The people who are in the right don't have to wait until the slow people catch up, in order to be right.
You do have to wait in order for it to be law. That's democracy.
> for those who are on the right side of the argument
In the US, women's suffrage and slavery do not ever need to be qualified by phrases like this. So really, the very way in which you had to phrase that sentence invalidates the point you're trying to make.
> (the one that will certainly be vindicated by history)
The most likely future political status of the issue is not the same as the present-day political status.
> The people who are in the right don't have to wait until the slow people catch up, in order to be right.
You do have to wait in order for it to be law. That's democracy.
There's a lot of people who realize that being anti-marriage-equality today is similar to being pro-slavery shortly after the Civil War when there was nowhere near 100% recognition of how abhorrent slavery is/was, though not in severity (i.e. both are morally wrong, but the magnitude of slavery is much, much greater...if pro-equality advocates were more intellectually honest, they'd equate it with prohibitions on interracial marriage which, though a vestige of slavery, is more of an exact corollary).
But it's pretty clear to those of us who have no dog in this fight that the anti-equality folks are on the wrong side of history. In 50 years, not allowing gays to marry will be more or less equivalent to the prohibitions against interracial marriage that once existed and are now, almost universally, recognized as being bigoted.
But it's pretty clear to those of us who have no dog in this fight that the anti-equality folks are on the wrong side of history. In 50 years, not allowing gays to marry will be more or less equivalent to the prohibitions against interracial marriage that once existed and are now, almost universally, recognized as being bigoted.
It is an opinion, what else could it be? You think it is wrong, but I also think many other prevalent mainstream opinions are wrong and injurious to my rights - such as banning me under the threat of imprisonment (or being shot by the warrior police, if I'm unlucky) to own certain chemicals, or certain tools of self-defense, or even certain information, or engage in certain voluntary transactions without prior state approval. You may say it's for my own and for society's benefit to restrict my rights, and everybody comes out ahead with it. But that's exactly what the other guys say too - everybody would be ahead and society would benefit greatly if only gay marriage were not allowed. You say holding such views is despicable and non-acceptable to the point that if you use browser which is made by a company whose executive holds such views you are tainted by it. Then I ask why you're not tainted by having people supporting even harsher infringements of liberties? Should we boycott everything that has relationship to people ever supporting gun control, war on drugs, rent control, zero tolerance policies, blasphemy bans, speech codes, etc.? Should we ban people known to have socialist sympathies (and this comes as close to actual slavery as it can get - socialist governments actually implemented forced labor many times and routinely strip people of their rights) from participating in our communities, for example? How far should we go with this?
Just in case, I agree with gay marriage, women suffrage and I’m against slavery. But I think that the people that disagree with my opinion have the right to have a different opinion. Are you sure that all your other opinions are also correct?
It’s interesting to read again http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html .
It’s interesting to read again http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html .
Let's not pretend that these people are donating money to the KKK or Focus on the Family. They are donating to major political candidates, with complex issue platforms of which gay marriage is almost certainly a small part. I don't see any names on here that could be considered "champions" of traditional marriage. Are you saying that every single person who donated anything to Mitt Romney or George W. Bush should be shunned and "reap what they sow?"
A lot of people believe that about every issue and on both sides. And we aren't talking about some small minority of bigots, it's the majority of the population. You can't just say it's not an issue in 2014 because it very much still is.
That's not it. Being anti-gay is perfectly acceptable. Passing laws that create official discrimination is not ok.
Was it a political view in 2008?
It could be merely misguided.
I agree with you. And frankly I am so appalled by the false equivalence offered by many 'liberals' on this issue. Rather than recognize that this freedom falls squarely within the preamble of the US Declaration of Independence, it is instead suggested by these people that it is a 'private' or 'religiously-motivated' 'belief' that therefore falls outside of critique, protest, or public protection (etc.). I'm sorry but this is simply not a moral case to make.
As I indicated before, I find it so appalling that you see such views espoused by the 'liberal' party of the US.
As I indicated before, I find it so appalling that you see such views espoused by the 'liberal' party of the US.
At the risk of being pedantic, the Declaration of Independence does not "grant" rights in the same manner that the Bill of Rights does, and really can't be used in the same context when attempting to make a Constitutional argument.
I didn't say that it "granted" anything. I said that in the US was founded on a specific idea of freedom. You're not being pedantic because what you say simply does not apply. Explain where I attempted to make a "Constitutional argument" - I didn't mention the Constitution a single time.
I was merely saying that this point:
> this freedom falls squarely within the preamble of the US Declaration of Independence
whether accurate or not, doesn't matter, because of the DOI isn't any sort of binding document. It can say that every man, woman and child deserve their own puppy, but that's not going to make it any more or less likely to happen.
> this freedom falls squarely within the preamble of the US Declaration of Independence
whether accurate or not, doesn't matter, because of the DOI isn't any sort of binding document. It can say that every man, woman and child deserve their own puppy, but that's not going to make it any more or less likely to happen.
"Merely" - no; your comment was nothing less than a straw man argument. I didn't say "Constitutional" anywhere, nor did I imply it. I stated unequivocally that it goes against the values of freedom the US was founded on.
The DoI does not say "everyone deserves a puppy". Give me a break and please take your straw man argument elsewhere.
The DoI does not say "everyone deserves a puppy". Give me a break and please take your straw man argument elsewhere.
Many of us view being homosexual just as absolutely unacceptable as being pro-choice or denying husbands the right to beat their wives. It's not simply a "moral view" in 2014. It's not an opinion. It's flat out wrong and supporters of that unnatural way of life reap what they sow.
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
- Sir Charles Napier
- Sir Charles Napier
Not sure if you are being a troll. Do you think it's unacceptable to deny people the right to beat their spouses or do you not understand how double negative works?
It's this thing where you do the same post verbatim with a few words swapped, and something witty and ironic pops out.
Unfortunately it didn't really turn out in this case...
Unfortunately it didn't really turn out in this case...
Sort of agree...
I've never been to Chic-fil-a because anything I purchase there is presumably having a portion donated to anti-gay legislation. I'm not comfortable with Orson Scott Card's activism (historically, though apparently he's reversed his position to more of a 'ehh, whatever') but I did purchase Shadow Complex. I've never used OKCupid, and if the company itself or major profit holders were donating large sums to anti-gay legislation, I would be comfortable personally boycotting them, as it were, but calling out individuals for their beliefs like this...I feel like it's going too far. As much as I support gay rights, I don't think being unable to get legally married is on the same level as human slavery or women's suffrage...
I've never been to Chic-fil-a because anything I purchase there is presumably having a portion donated to anti-gay legislation. I'm not comfortable with Orson Scott Card's activism (historically, though apparently he's reversed his position to more of a 'ehh, whatever') but I did purchase Shadow Complex. I've never used OKCupid, and if the company itself or major profit holders were donating large sums to anti-gay legislation, I would be comfortable personally boycotting them, as it were, but calling out individuals for their beliefs like this...I feel like it's going too far. As much as I support gay rights, I don't think being unable to get legally married is on the same level as human slavery or women's suffrage...
What is and isn't acceptable in figuring into professional interactions is a moving target over time. For example, actively supporting white supremacist groups would probably have drastic professional consequences today; in the 1920's there would be few if any consequences. See: Overton Window.
We're currently in a transitional period as discrimination-against-people-based-on-sexual-orientation undergoes the same social transition that discrimination-against-people-based-on-skin-color underwent a few decades ago. When it's over, people won't think of it as a political thing anymore.
We're currently in a transitional period as discrimination-against-people-based-on-sexual-orientation undergoes the same social transition that discrimination-against-people-based-on-skin-color underwent a few decades ago. When it's over, people won't think of it as a political thing anymore.
[deleted]
I am waiting for the vegan people to protest against all those CEOs that eat meat.
Let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=peta+protests+ceo
I agree. I totally disagree with him but he has a right to hold views that I and others disagree with. And he has a right to donate accordingly. And Mozilla is not an organization whose mission is gay rights. This is politically correct overreach.
What discrimination? Eich exercised his right to donate to political causes. OkCupid (and others) are exercising their right to protest. Just because you have the right to your political views does not mean you don't have the right to be criticized for those views.
We're entering a time (finally, I hope) where people don't care why a person is a bigot, or whether they're only a bigot in "private", whatever that means. I can see how this could be problematic as well as you, but I'm very willing to ride with it for now.
I agree with you, and can't help but think: how many of these people would resign in protest when an openly Christian CEO takes the reins of their company. There's a lot of slimy shit in the bible: homophobia, slavery, misogyny, patriarchy, social injustice, etc.
I'm of the opinion that actions speak louder than words. The first time Eich tries to pull some shit, I'll change my mind. But until then, I'm willing to give him a fair shake
I'm of the opinion that actions speak louder than words. The first time Eich tries to pull some shit, I'll change my mind. But until then, I'm willing to give him a fair shake
>The thing I don't get about this whole faux controversy is since when is it professionally acceptable to discriminate against someone for their private political views and esp. those that might be informed by religious beliefs so long as they don't bring them into the workplace?
Because actual voting is essentially worthless now that our judicial elders have dictated that spending money is the same thing as speech. Money now buys elections, moreso than votes. So we're learning to vote with our dollars like the fat cats do.
Because actual voting is essentially worthless now that our judicial elders have dictated that spending money is the same thing as speech. Money now buys elections, moreso than votes. So we're learning to vote with our dollars like the fat cats do.
It appears that this debate is also considered outside the voting booth. Ie most of the actual popular votes that have been held were deemed unconstitutional. So the judicial elders are settling this issue by decree.
Where are the OkCupid employees on that list?
Perhaps you should change the title to IAC Employees... It's fine to point out that employees at their parent company made donations to these politicians, but I don't see any work done here to link the data with OkCupid employees.
The dates of many of those contributions are way before IAC bought OkCupid.
Perhaps you should change the title to IAC Employees... It's fine to point out that employees at their parent company made donations to these politicians, but I don't see any work done here to link the data with OkCupid employees.
The dates of many of those contributions are way before IAC bought OkCupid.
Yeah looking over it I don't see a single OkC employee, former or current on there.
The implication here is that OKCupid is being hypocritical. But there's clearly a difference between donating money to a candidate who has positions on a wide variety of issues -- some of which you may not agree with -- and donating money to a very specific cause.
But really, you need to treat what OkCupid is doing as some pretty clever marketing that's gotten it lots of free advertising, and not some kind of moral statement.
But really, you need to treat what OkCupid is doing as some pretty clever marketing that's gotten it lots of free advertising, and not some kind of moral statement.
"But really, you need to treat what OkCupid is doing as some pretty clever marketing that's gotten it lots of free advertising, and not some kind of moral statement."
If that is true, then that is as morally bankrupt as a company can get and I starting to believe I know who Bill Hicks was talking about.
If that is true, then that is as morally bankrupt as a company can get and I starting to believe I know who Bill Hicks was talking about.
Yea, I don't really see an issue here. I'm sure you could pull up something like this and point fingers about a specific issue for anyone who has ever donated to any candidate. Plus, these individuals opinions are not representative of their company.
I'm more curious about what the purpose of attempting to smear IAC and OkC is.
I'm more curious about what the purpose of attempting to smear IAC and OkC is.
Nobody's personal beliefs should be representative of the company. If the guy was a Catholic, would you say that Mozilla is a Catholic organization, or that he's going to make Catholic decisions?
You may not remember that President Kennedy was accused of being "controlled" by the Vatican when he was elected because he was the first (and remains the only) Roman-Catholic president, and people were freaked out he'd take orders from the Pope. Turned out not to be the case.
You may not remember that President Kennedy was accused of being "controlled" by the Vatican when he was elected because he was the first (and remains the only) Roman-Catholic president, and people were freaked out he'd take orders from the Pope. Turned out not to be the case.
To address fears that his being Catholic would impact his decision-making,
he famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on
September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am
the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be
a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and
the Church does not speak for me."[46] Kennedy questioned rhetorically
whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class
citizenship just because they were Catholic, and once stated that,
"No one asked me my religion [serving the Navy] in the South Pacific."[47]
Slash and burn everything associated with someone who has a differing opinion is the most likely reason.
There's also a big difference between a CEO and run of the mill employee
But that implies that, as employees rise through the ranks, there must come a point at which their political stance starts to matter.
We had such an arrangement here in Germany (then West-Germany) a few years back: When you wanted to become a civil servant beyond a certain pay-grade (if I remember correctly, it was the first "advanced" pay grade for schoolteachers) in the 70s, you could not be a member of certain political parties (KPD, the communist party for instance).
We had such an arrangement here in Germany (then West-Germany) a few years back: When you wanted to become a civil servant beyond a certain pay-grade (if I remember correctly, it was the first "advanced" pay grade for schoolteachers) in the 70s, you could not be a member of certain political parties (KPD, the communist party for instance).
Which is why, if you're running a company, you generally don't go barking up moral trees in the way OkCupid did, since you're speaking for a larger organization that possibly doesn't share your beliefs.
What about organizations that actively support gay rights? Where CEOs actively promote policies to advantage the status and wellbeing of gay employees eg Apple? There may well be Apple employees or investors that don't agree with that policy but CEOs can't not stand for anything because of the risk that some will be offended by their positions.
If there's any indication that Eich acted unlawfully in his role as CEO that's an issue. If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different.
What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar? This is just mob rule.
* I'm making no statement as to whether I agree with either side.
What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar? This is just mob rule.
* I'm making no statement as to whether I agree with either side.
> If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different.
More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage. Individual Republicans' opinions aside, the Republican Party is still running on an opposition platform as of April 2013 after all, and that party has done far more to hurt gay marriage rights than Prop. 8 by itself.
Eich is being crucified because he's a viable target, not because of any innate guilt that he alone is imbued with. I find that quite hypocritical.
More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage. Individual Republicans' opinions aside, the Republican Party is still running on an opposition platform as of April 2013 after all, and that party has done far more to hurt gay marriage rights than Prop. 8 by itself.
Eich is being crucified because he's a viable target, not because of any innate guilt that he alone is imbued with. I find that quite hypocritical.
More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage
Not really. I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. There is also a message of fiscal conservatism, pro-business stances, etc. etc.
Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.
Not really. I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. There is also a message of fiscal conservatism, pro-business stances, etc. etc.
Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.
> I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else.
That would imply that it would be acceptable to associate with dirty anti-gay marriage types if they were otherwise politically useful, would it not?
And if that's the case then I do not see how you could logically then "boycott Mozilla" as a consequence of Eich's appointment as CEO, since Mozilla actually does tons of good for people.
> Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.
Be that as it may, the vibe I'm getting from Eich's opponents is precisely that "you're either with us or against us". And moreover, that commingling good deeds with foul ones is no excuse. After all I would hope that it's only a very few that think "Mussolini made the trains run on time" was an excuse for all the rest.
Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here he must have done something really bad, and if it's that bad it's the kind of thing you don't outweigh just by going "Well I also voted against Obamacare!".
Again, no single political group has done more to oppress homosexuals from being able to marry than the GOP, however you dress it up. If opposing gay marriage is automatically a bad enough crime to warrant Eich's treatment then it should be bad enough irrespective of other, "nicer" opinions.
After all, Eich himself surely has "good" opinions we'd mostly agree with, would he not? He may even be on the whole good for the community, but no one has accorded him the opportunity of a trial or even thought very hard about whether his "goods" outweigh his "bad".
That would imply that it would be acceptable to associate with dirty anti-gay marriage types if they were otherwise politically useful, would it not?
And if that's the case then I do not see how you could logically then "boycott Mozilla" as a consequence of Eich's appointment as CEO, since Mozilla actually does tons of good for people.
> Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.
Be that as it may, the vibe I'm getting from Eich's opponents is precisely that "you're either with us or against us". And moreover, that commingling good deeds with foul ones is no excuse. After all I would hope that it's only a very few that think "Mussolini made the trains run on time" was an excuse for all the rest.
Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here he must have done something really bad, and if it's that bad it's the kind of thing you don't outweigh just by going "Well I also voted against Obamacare!".
Again, no single political group has done more to oppress homosexuals from being able to marry than the GOP, however you dress it up. If opposing gay marriage is automatically a bad enough crime to warrant Eich's treatment then it should be bad enough irrespective of other, "nicer" opinions.
After all, Eich himself surely has "good" opinions we'd mostly agree with, would he not? He may even be on the whole good for the community, but no one has accorded him the opportunity of a trial or even thought very hard about whether his "goods" outweigh his "bad".
> Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here
Except that no one is doing that. There's a pretty vast gulf between boycott and witch-burning.
Except that no one is doing that. There's a pretty vast gulf between boycott and witch-burning.
Sorry, I'll adjust my comments to be even wordier so that my obvious hyperbole to make a point will be either more obvious or less hyperbolic.
What if he, instead, had donated to writing race-based discrimination into the state constitution? Not a rhetorical question. For some, including me, that's the fair comparison. Not gun laws or other types of legislation.
If you don't think mine is the right comparison, that's fine, but if you're interested in understanding the other point of view as I assume you are, there it is.
If you don't think mine is the right comparison, that's fine, but if you're interested in understanding the other point of view as I assume you are, there it is.
What if he donated to the NRA or a pro-GMO campaign for example? Would there be similar uproar?
No, because noone see those causes as being founded in fear and hate.
EDIT: changed wording for clarity
Also, to the downvoters Do you really think we would have heard about all this as much if it were related to other issues?
No, because noone see those causes as being founded in fear and hate.
EDIT: changed wording for clarity
Also, to the downvoters Do you really think we would have heard about all this as much if it were related to other issues?
>No, because no one see those causes as being founded in fear and hate.
There is a serious lack of empathy in the viewpoint the parent describes. The premise that "anyone who disagrees with x is motivated by fear and hate" is a very dangerous one.
There is a serious lack of empathy in the viewpoint the parent describes. The premise that "anyone who disagrees with x is motivated by fear and hate" is a very dangerous one.
[deleted]
Well, the NRA is at least partially responsible for perpetuating an unhealthy gun culture in the USA that is responsible for thousands of deaths every year. There's plenty to fear and hate about that.
I'll take the bait. The NRA is reacting to any mention of gun control from the left the same way the left reacts to any mention of abortion restrictions from the right - don't believe anything they say, because they are trying for victory by inches. And considering some of the rhetoric flying around, they probably should (both sides).
Eh, they're no more responsible than the USDA is responsible for unhealthy food or the oil and gas lobby is for pollution or the AMA is for cartel behavior on the supply of doctors.
(and in all of those cases, the death tolls are higher.)
It's easy for people (especially certain middle-to-high income bracket liberal demographics) to give a pass on hating NRA/rednecks/religious folks while at the same time remaining indignant about what is an issue effecting a small subset of the population.
Moreover, while there are very valid arguments to be made in support of gay rights (usually by way of personal liberty, freedom of association, privacy, etc.), you really need to be willing to apply them to folks you don't like.
(and in all of those cases, the death tolls are higher.)
It's easy for people (especially certain middle-to-high income bracket liberal demographics) to give a pass on hating NRA/rednecks/religious folks while at the same time remaining indignant about what is an issue effecting a small subset of the population.
Moreover, while there are very valid arguments to be made in support of gay rights (usually by way of personal liberty, freedom of association, privacy, etc.), you really need to be willing to apply them to folks you don't like.
[deleted]
I am all for gay marriage and I have a deep dislike of homophobia. But I am concerned about some of the reactions to Mozilla because of Brendan Eich's position. I totally disagree with him but surely he is entitled to have his view and to donate accordingly. He was donating as a private person not as a representative of Mozilla. Furthermore, there is nothing about Mozilla as an organization that particularly 'stands for' gay rights. It is not as if he is working for a gay rights group and then donating to oppose the group he is working for. This smacks of the thought police to me.
How does this "smack of the thought police"? OKCupid is not a government organization. At worst, they are expressing their own political belief. If you are considering the situation outside of the context of OKCupid, then I do not understand the relevance of the comment. And outside of the context of OKCupid, again, no authority is 'policing' Eich's thoughts. He donated money and this is information which is known publicly; there is no reason that he should be immune from critique. Given that he has offered several thousand dollars in support of legislative measures which would seek to actively discriminate against citizens, his employees among them, I believe that any and all scrutiny is necessary.
The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation. This whole situation reeks of some splinter group of gay-rights activists attempting to take out a high-profile target because he has a different opinion on marriage than they do. They are attempting to guide people's opinions by showing them what happens if you decide to go against them. Quite frankly, I think it is morally disgusting and it weakens there cause ultimately. Mr. Eich's personal politics are none of our business unless he starts allowing those politics to influence Mozilla... which until that occurs I see do not see a reason to criticize him.
> The term "thought-police" does not necessarily have a government connotation.
Only if you rob it of all substance does it not necessarily imply an oppressive government.
Only if you rob it of all substance does it not necessarily imply an oppressive government.
I agree with you and regarding the poster to whom you were replying, all I can say is that I find it really disturbing that she or he believes publicly held beliefs from private citizens should be immune from public commentary. The consequences of this reasoning are severe and dangerous.
To disagree with someone makes me the "thought police"? I just don't see how this applies at all.
EDIT: I am adding this as an afterthought but honestly to totally disregard the Orwellian connotation of the term "thought police" I think is a very liberal application of the term.
To disagree with someone makes me the "thought police"? I just don't see how this applies at all.
EDIT: I am adding this as an afterthought but honestly to totally disregard the Orwellian connotation of the term "thought police" I think is a very liberal application of the term.
I think the notion of thought-police posited by meddlepal is just as scary as that of an oppressive government. Governments, at least, can be overthrown.
And private individuals or organizations cannot? The flaw of logic is obvious.
I don't really know what you're trying to say. I'm not talking about one person or one organization.
From the poster who suggested the use of the term "thought police":
> "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation."
If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party.
It is an inherent double standard.
Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual?
If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.
> "The term 'thought-police' does not necessarily have a government connotation."
If it is not government, then the party under discussion therefore must be a private individual or organization. I don't understand how this is anything like the commonly accepted understanding of "thought police". It is simply one private party critiquing the behavior (in this case, a monetary donation to support certain legislation) of another private party.
It is an inherent double standard.
Also: if Eich, rather than fund legislation which discriminates against gays, funded legislation that discriminated against, for example, black people, would you be confident that black people who worked for Mozilla would be working in a fair environment? Would another private organization, like OKCupid, be justified in questioning such an individual?
If this is to be branded the "thought police" then I worry about freedom of expression and our cultural mores, in general.
Eich is being critiqued right now by more than just one private party. That's why I was confused with your post.
Also, "critique" is a rather kind way of putting it. It's more like doing everything possible to take his job away.
And that's the real problem. Trying to sabotage someone's career over a difference of political opinion is not a mature or effective way to advance your message. How would you like it if all your coworkers publicly petitioned for you to quit because it was discovered you were pro-choice (hypothetically)? There are people who think abortion is plain old murder. People like that will think a pro-choice stance is absolutely unacceptable, and they might even think an example should be made of anybody who supports such legislature.
Also, "critique" is a rather kind way of putting it. It's more like doing everything possible to take his job away.
And that's the real problem. Trying to sabotage someone's career over a difference of political opinion is not a mature or effective way to advance your message. How would you like it if all your coworkers publicly petitioned for you to quit because it was discovered you were pro-choice (hypothetically)? There are people who think abortion is plain old murder. People like that will think a pro-choice stance is absolutely unacceptable, and they might even think an example should be made of anybody who supports such legislature.
Why does the quantity of private parties matter? He publicly donated money. I don't understand why you believe he is immune to criticism.
Do you understand that he is CEO of a large company? Do you understand that LGBT individuals and their allies work for this company? Including its board of directors. Do you understand that they have already publicly spoken about the real consequences his appointment to CEO has on them?
Would I like it if people petitioned for me to quit? No. I can't imagine Eich is too pleased with this backlash. But that doesn't make LGBT individuals wrong in speaking out against promoting bigoted legislation. If you think "hurt feelings" is a good defense for Eich, how do you think his LGBT constituency feels? He materially invested in anti-gay legislation. These people spoke out against it.
I am just so floored by this type of reasoning you promote.
And "trying to sabotage someone's career" is like Dan Brown getting a bad book review. Like Brown, Eich has already made a successful career out of technology; nothing they say is going to limit his success in the field. It is an absolute fact that there are those of his constituency who feel specifically discriminated against. How is it not within their right (or other peoples' rights) to speak out publicly about this?
How is this even close to thought crime? It is a matter of private citizens/organizations; he contributed materially to anti-gay legislation (not simple thoughts); there is no governing body capable of actually punishing him.
Again, I am floored by the reasoning being promoted here.
Do you understand that he is CEO of a large company? Do you understand that LGBT individuals and their allies work for this company? Including its board of directors. Do you understand that they have already publicly spoken about the real consequences his appointment to CEO has on them?
Would I like it if people petitioned for me to quit? No. I can't imagine Eich is too pleased with this backlash. But that doesn't make LGBT individuals wrong in speaking out against promoting bigoted legislation. If you think "hurt feelings" is a good defense for Eich, how do you think his LGBT constituency feels? He materially invested in anti-gay legislation. These people spoke out against it.
I am just so floored by this type of reasoning you promote.
And "trying to sabotage someone's career" is like Dan Brown getting a bad book review. Like Brown, Eich has already made a successful career out of technology; nothing they say is going to limit his success in the field. It is an absolute fact that there are those of his constituency who feel specifically discriminated against. How is it not within their right (or other peoples' rights) to speak out publicly about this?
How is this even close to thought crime? It is a matter of private citizens/organizations; he contributed materially to anti-gay legislation (not simple thoughts); there is no governing body capable of actually punishing him.
Again, I am floored by the reasoning being promoted here.
While I believe OkCupid's intentions are true, the parent company IAC tries to cover all bases.
Looking at their "Personals" portfolio[1] only, already gives a list of the following companies and brands:
That's capitalism at work. Much like Axe/Lynx and Dove seem to sell different agendas yet still both add to Unilever's revenue.
[1] http://iac.com/brands?field_category__tid=22
[2] http://iac.com/brand/peoplemedia
Looking at their "Personals" portfolio[1] only, already gives a list of the following companies and brands:
match.com
chemistry.com
meetic
twoo
tinder
peoplemedia[2] including
OurTime.com
LDSplanet.com
catholicpeoplemeet.com
republicanpeoplemeet.com
marriagemindedpeoplemeet.com
That's capitalism at work. Much like Axe/Lynx and Dove seem to sell different agendas yet still both add to Unilever's revenue.
[1] http://iac.com/brands?field_category__tid=22
[2] http://iac.com/brand/peoplemedia
My main disagreement with the Mozilla boycott is that I believe it is wholly unfair to disregard so many years of hard work by countless contributors that have all been pivotal in the advancement of web technologies, just because of the actions of one person (even if it is their de facto figurehead), whose intentions, by the way, are still not clear.
Even more, considering Mozilla's a free software non-profit foundation. But if you're going to do it, why half-ass it? After all, Eich is the man. Go on and boycott JavaScript. A dedicated activist like Stallman would not persist merely because of convenience.
Even more, considering Mozilla's a free software non-profit foundation. But if you're going to do it, why half-ass it? After all, Eich is the man. Go on and boycott JavaScript. A dedicated activist like Stallman would not persist merely because of convenience.
So? Unless these employees were doing so on behalf of their employer, I don't see why it matters in the slightest.
The only reason why Brendan Eich's contribution should be an issue is because he's now the CEO of Mozilla and people are afraid that his personal beliefs on the matter will affect Mozilla. But that worry is only justified when talking about the CEO (or I suppose the Director of Human Resources, or whatever the equivalent at Mozilla is).
And even that I think might be an overreaction. From everything Brendan Eich has said publicly, it appears that he wants to keep his personal beliefs private, and that he's committed to everything Mozilla stands for in his public role as CEO. So I'm not worried that he's going to turn Mozilla into a bad work environment for gay employees. My only real worry is that he will not be proactive about improving conditions or about supporting relevant community initiatives, but the same could be said of a CEO that has no opinion whatsoever on gay marriage.
In any case, OKCupid has taken public actions (e.g. their message to Firefox users) that indicate that, as a company, they come down in favor of gay marriage. The individual beliefs and actions of their rank & file employees should not matter in the slightest.
The only reason why Brendan Eich's contribution should be an issue is because he's now the CEO of Mozilla and people are afraid that his personal beliefs on the matter will affect Mozilla. But that worry is only justified when talking about the CEO (or I suppose the Director of Human Resources, or whatever the equivalent at Mozilla is).
And even that I think might be an overreaction. From everything Brendan Eich has said publicly, it appears that he wants to keep his personal beliefs private, and that he's committed to everything Mozilla stands for in his public role as CEO. So I'm not worried that he's going to turn Mozilla into a bad work environment for gay employees. My only real worry is that he will not be proactive about improving conditions or about supporting relevant community initiatives, but the same could be said of a CEO that has no opinion whatsoever on gay marriage.
In any case, OKCupid has taken public actions (e.g. their message to Firefox users) that indicate that, as a company, they come down in favor of gay marriage. The individual beliefs and actions of their rank & file employees should not matter in the slightest.
> The only reason why Brendan Eich's contribution should be an issue is because he's now the CEO of Mozilla and people are afraid that his personal beliefs on the matter will affect Mozilla.
What proof do we have that his personal beliefs will affect Mozilla? Guilty until proven innocent I see.
What proof do we have that his personal beliefs will affect Mozilla? Guilty until proven innocent I see.
Mixing "people are afraid" and "proof" doesn't exactly work. This isn't a criminal court; there's no need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even a civil court, so there's no need for a preponderance of evidence.
This person donated money to a campaign to remove from them one of the basic civil rights of man, and they're understandably worried about what might happen because of that. Additionally, they're unhappy with having a person who has done so in such an important and visible position of something they love.
This person donated money to a campaign to remove from them one of the basic civil rights of man, and they're understandably worried about what might happen because of that. Additionally, they're unhappy with having a person who has done so in such an important and visible position of something they love.
And, in response, they're conducting a campaign to remove from Eich one of the basic civil rights of man - free speech (including political speech). You don't lose that right just because you become a CEO.
No government is restricting Mr. Eich's freedom of speech. In fact, no one is, at all. People are using their free speech to counter his. This is the system working as intended.
(Also, people desiring or acting to remove him from a position as CEO is not an issue of freedom of speech. There is no right to being a CEO.)
(Also, people desiring or acting to remove him from a position as CEO is not an issue of freedom of speech. There is no right to being a CEO.)
It's really kind of interesting how in the last few years people with shitty opinions get all mad and indignant if they get flack for it, as if "free speech" is really "freedom from criticism of speech".
> And, in response, they're conducting a campaign to remove from Eich one of the basic civil rights of man - free speech (including political speech).
No, they aren't. Eich exercised his free speech, and advocated that other people exercise their right to vote in a particular way.
They are exercising their right to free speech, and advocating that other people exercise their right to free association in a particular way.
They don't like the way Eich exercised his right to free speech, or the action it advocated, but they don't argue that he should not have been permitted to exercise that right.
No, they aren't. Eich exercised his free speech, and advocated that other people exercise their right to vote in a particular way.
They are exercising their right to free speech, and advocating that other people exercise their right to free association in a particular way.
They don't like the way Eich exercised his right to free speech, or the action it advocated, but they don't argue that he should not have been permitted to exercise that right.
Well, this isn't a court of law. This is about attempting to predict his future behavior, and how said behavior will materially affect the lives of thousands of people (both Mozilla employees and community members who are affected by Mozilla's role in the community).
Personally, I'm willing to give Eich the benefit of the doubt. But I also think that his actions as CEO during the next couple of months should be watched carefully, and held to a higher standard than if the CEO was someone who had done nothing at all with regards to gay marriage. Eich did something 6 years ago that negatively impacted a lot of people, and he needs to show that this action does not reflect his behavior as CEO, and the best way to do that is to be proactive about making things better. That doesn't mean maintaining the current health care benefits for gay employees (as he promised to do). This means implementing new policies to improve things for gay employees, or performing some form of community outreach related to this goal, or even publicly supporting a gay rights organization.
Personally, I'm willing to give Eich the benefit of the doubt. But I also think that his actions as CEO during the next couple of months should be watched carefully, and held to a higher standard than if the CEO was someone who had done nothing at all with regards to gay marriage. Eich did something 6 years ago that negatively impacted a lot of people, and he needs to show that this action does not reflect his behavior as CEO, and the best way to do that is to be proactive about making things better. That doesn't mean maintaining the current health care benefits for gay employees (as he promised to do). This means implementing new policies to improve things for gay employees, or performing some form of community outreach related to this goal, or even publicly supporting a gay rights organization.
> Well, this isn't a court of law. This is about attempting to predict his future behavior
It has been like two weeks? I think we need to stop predicting. Since IAC is boycotting Mozilla Firefox browser by displaying message to Firefox user, will IAC now fire these employees? Will managers be forced to not to promote these employees? That would be against labor law but also hypocrite coming from the company that's blocking Mozilla Firefox, wouldn't it?
Let's stop the arguging. I can find someone among the gays who don't support abortion at all and if he or she is placed as CEO the pro-choice community will scream at him/her. This is now a never-ending drama.
It has been like two weeks? I think we need to stop predicting. Since IAC is boycotting Mozilla Firefox browser by displaying message to Firefox user, will IAC now fire these employees? Will managers be forced to not to promote these employees? That would be against labor law but also hypocrite coming from the company that's blocking Mozilla Firefox, wouldn't it?
Let's stop the arguging. I can find someone among the gays who don't support abortion at all and if he or she is placed as CEO the pro-choice community will scream at him/her. This is now a never-ending drama.
Huh? We don't need to stop predicting yet; it hasn't been long enough yet to draw any conclusions about how he's guiding Mozilla in regards to this issue.
As for IAC, I don't understand your comment at all. Why would IAC penalize employees whose personal beliefs disagree with this public action? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that a company requires all of its employees to hold the same beliefs that the company is publicly promoting.
As for IAC, I don't understand your comment at all. Why would IAC penalize employees whose personal beliefs disagree with this public action? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that a company requires all of its employees to hold the same beliefs that the company is publicly promoting.
Why would IAC penalize employees whose personal beliefs disagree with this public action? There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that a company requires all of its employees to hold the same beliefs that the company is publicly promoting.
You just made my point. Isn't a CEO also an employee? Just because he is the most powerful figure in the company doesn't mean he has to hold the same beliefs that the company is publicly promoting, which is equality and openness to all as a private citizen. He will have to hold the same belief as Mozilla as a CEO. Mozilla and its community accepts there are people who believe and disagree on marriage equality.
Huh? We don't need to stop predicting yet; it hasn't been long enough yet to draw any conclusions about how he's guiding Mozilla in regards to this issue.
Set a deadline. I'll give you a month to talk about this. Then? What's next? Exactly. It won't change anything. He's the CEO. He won't step down. Mozilla will continue to function. People will keep an eye on Mozilla. That's it. So tell me, what good is your prediction? More articles and speculations and rants and wars?
Why should you or anyone draw any conclusion? What conclusion? What good is your prediction to this non-stop no-win situation? Just as I said I can find a pro-life person to manage the company will receive the same doubt: what good is you or anyone continue to make "prediction"? If your prediction only causes more useless non-stop repeating arguments, that kind of prediction is just noise simply because nothing new will ever come out.
You just made my point. Isn't a CEO also an employee? Just because he is the most powerful figure in the company doesn't mean he has to hold the same beliefs that the company is publicly promoting, which is equality and openness to all as a private citizen. He will have to hold the same belief as Mozilla as a CEO. Mozilla and its community accepts there are people who believe and disagree on marriage equality.
Huh? We don't need to stop predicting yet; it hasn't been long enough yet to draw any conclusions about how he's guiding Mozilla in regards to this issue.
Set a deadline. I'll give you a month to talk about this. Then? What's next? Exactly. It won't change anything. He's the CEO. He won't step down. Mozilla will continue to function. People will keep an eye on Mozilla. That's it. So tell me, what good is your prediction? More articles and speculations and rants and wars?
Why should you or anyone draw any conclusion? What conclusion? What good is your prediction to this non-stop no-win situation? Just as I said I can find a pro-life person to manage the company will receive the same doubt: what good is you or anyone continue to make "prediction"? If your prediction only causes more useless non-stop repeating arguments, that kind of prediction is just noise simply because nothing new will ever come out.
I get the feeling you haven't actually bothered to read anything I've said on this subject, because you're arguing as though I'm calling for Brendan Eich's head, when in fact I've said multiple times that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and wait to see how he actually acts, rather than draw conclusions based on a personal action he took 6 years ago.
When you have a CEO who openly believes that a class of people (whether that's gays, women, hispanics, etc.) are inherently "bad people", there's cause for concern about how that might affect the running of a large organization (whose employees are bound to include people openly belonging to that group). His stance and position alone could be enough to alienate potential talent. Nobody can say he's "guilty of adversely affecting Mozilla" at this point, but the situation does raise those types of questions.
[deleted]
In any case, OKCupid has taken public actions (e.g. their message to Firefox users) that indicate that, as a company, they come down in favor of gay marriage.
I don't think that's quite true. Rather, what it seems is that they're being opportunists by milking a controversy so as to make themselves appear as if they have the moral high ground.
Telling people to boycott a free software browser that has been the result of over a decade of labor by large numbers of contributors and has been responsible for many advancements in the web, over the actions of one person (even if the CEO), the reasons of which are still unclear, is not what I'd call supporting gay marriage.
There's plenty of other much better ways to express support. What's even more interesting is that they have selected Firefox as the product to boycott, and not the rest of the Mozilla Foundation's projects. I guess actually targeting the root cause (Eich, and consequently JavaScript) is too much to swallow.
I don't think that's quite true. Rather, what it seems is that they're being opportunists by milking a controversy so as to make themselves appear as if they have the moral high ground.
Telling people to boycott a free software browser that has been the result of over a decade of labor by large numbers of contributors and has been responsible for many advancements in the web, over the actions of one person (even if the CEO), the reasons of which are still unclear, is not what I'd call supporting gay marriage.
There's plenty of other much better ways to express support. What's even more interesting is that they have selected Firefox as the product to boycott, and not the rest of the Mozilla Foundation's projects. I guess actually targeting the root cause (Eich, and consequently JavaScript) is too much to swallow.
I think their recommendation of boycotting Firefox is wrong. But the point is that OKCupid has made a public statement that, however misguided, indicates support for gay marriage.
> I guess actually targeting the root cause (Eich, and consequently JavaScript) is too much to swallow.
Firefox is probably the only thing they can target that makes sense. JavaScript is probably the only other Mozilla project that the majority of OKCupid visitors would even recognize, and most of them probably don't use JavaScript at all and have no way to boycott it (not to mention that it's pretty hard to boycott JavaScript anyway, because it's the assembly language of the web).
Also, the only indicating factor they have to decide if they should even show the message is that the user's browser is Firefox. Showing this message to everyone would definitely be too much.
> I guess actually targeting the root cause (Eich, and consequently JavaScript) is too much to swallow.
Firefox is probably the only thing they can target that makes sense. JavaScript is probably the only other Mozilla project that the majority of OKCupid visitors would even recognize, and most of them probably don't use JavaScript at all and have no way to boycott it (not to mention that it's pretty hard to boycott JavaScript anyway, because it's the assembly language of the web).
Also, the only indicating factor they have to decide if they should even show the message is that the user's browser is Firefox. Showing this message to everyone would definitely be too much.
Well, it sends the message that, if you oppose gay marriage, they're going to find a way to make you pay. That may be of some value to the battle for gay rights, but it's a horrible way to do it.
Even if you frame this as a civil rights battle, you don't win civil rights battles that way. The black right to vote was not won by eliminating the KKK's right to free speech.
Even if you frame this as a civil rights battle, you don't win civil rights battles that way. The black right to vote was not won by eliminating the KKK's right to free speech.
IF his beliefs lead to policies inside Mozilla that disadvantage gay employees THEN will be the time to protest. Otherwise he is entitled to hold his own private beliefs no matter how much we/I may disagree with them.
You are entitled to your opinions, but you have no say in when people are legally able to protest, regardless of how much you disagree with their right to do so. They can protest any time they want.
They haven't taken public actions that indicate that they come down in favor of gay marriage, just that they come down in opposition of Brendan Eich.
I'm not going to defend Brendan Eich, what he did was deplorable and the Prop. 8 victory dealt a demoralizing blow to the LGBT community. However, as a gay developer, I can't stomach the witch-hunt mentality, even if it happens to be in support of a just cause. Mozilla has done incredible things over the years which have changed the internet for the better. I'd rather not live in a world where imposed political correctness shields me from knowing people for who they really are.
I don't believe in publically crucifying people whose political beliefs I don't agree with.
Curious. They left off everyone who contributed to Obama in 2008.
Obama was on record openly opposing gay marriage, explicitly stating "I am not in favor of gay marriage."[1]
As we all know, he's since changed his mind (which is good thing), but would the same logic apply to the Republicans on this list? If they changed their position, does it mean it's okay to have contributed to them why they opposed gay marriage?
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/
Obama was on record openly opposing gay marriage, explicitly stating "I am not in favor of gay marriage."[1]
As we all know, he's since changed his mind (which is good thing), but would the same logic apply to the Republicans on this list? If they changed their position, does it mean it's okay to have contributed to them why they opposed gay marriage?
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/
So they're homophobes because they donated to Republican candidates? Are we seriously doing this now? Just because you donate to a political candidate doesn't mean you agree with his/her positions on everything. I doubt many of these candidates even feel that strongly about gay marriage and are not just pandering to the Republican base.
A more accurate title should be "donated to Republicans". But I can see what they're trying to do
Funny, I don't see any of these people on the list donating explicitly to Prop 8 PACs or the like. While I would find that pretty hypocritical, I can't fault them simply for donating to politicians who had many policy stances, one of which was an opposition to same sex marriage.
Is the complaint here simply that these people failed to be single-issue voters?
Is the complaint here simply that these people failed to be single-issue voters?
I think it's the fact that he is in a position of some power within our industry that makes his personal and political viewpoints relevant to the rest of us. What kind of message does it send to your employees when you support a view that is rejected by (what I'm guessing is) a vast majority of the people in your industry?
The fact is, we can pull our support from people who we think are shitty if we want to in order to push progress forward to the kind of society we want to live it, specifically one where all Americans are treated equally under the law.
If it were up to me, I would completely eradicate the idea of marriage as a government institution, it doesn't belong in their hands in the first place. But I'm very much in the minority on that one.
The fact is, we can pull our support from people who we think are shitty if we want to in order to push progress forward to the kind of society we want to live it, specifically one where all Americans are treated equally under the law.
If it were up to me, I would completely eradicate the idea of marriage as a government institution, it doesn't belong in their hands in the first place. But I'm very much in the minority on that one.
Something else that is interesting is that the big companies have already figured out that it's simply better business to support LGBT rights. I have absolutely no reason to believe that guys like Blankfein actually give two shits about the gays, but they will be the ones to push us forward. If only to make more money.
Case in point: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-ceo-lloyd-blankfei...
Case in point: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-ceo-lloyd-blankfei...
Among the quiz questions that OkCupid asks its users, do any of them deal with this issue (given the extensive set of questions they ask on very diverse subjects, I might guess yes?). Are the users who don't support gay marriage then told that they "are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure"? Given their stance, they ought to do that, yes?
So did anyone actually look at the linked list before commenting?
It's a list of every OKCupid employee who donated to any Republican. Zero of them are donations to the Proposition 8 campaign.
Remember:
* Donating to take existing rights away from gay people = freedom of speech.
* Objecting to someone donating to take away existing rights from gay people = fascism.
It's a list of every OKCupid employee who donated to any Republican. Zero of them are donations to the Proposition 8 campaign.
Remember:
* Donating to take existing rights away from gay people = freedom of speech.
* Objecting to someone donating to take away existing rights from gay people = fascism.
An entirely predictable next step in the saga. :-/
How much did OkCupid/IAC employees donate to pro-Gay Marriage politicians? This list is useless without seeing a comparison, and until then, I think this is just a poor attempt at trolling.
Just you can't just look at how many people someone have killed, you also have to look at how many children they have had? It is a zero sum game, after all.
I suspect the did much more damage developing javascript.
I found this to be the most interesting page:
http://iac.com/about/leadership
One group. One dream. To own a bunch of random websites, together.
edit: With the help of Chelsea Clinton and Michael Eisner!
http://iac.com/about/leadership
One group. One dream. To own a bunch of random websites, together.
edit: With the help of Chelsea Clinton and Michael Eisner!
Is that an april fools joke or is this site becoming LGBT Hacker News?