5 ms·

> ought to be denied various legal rights I think you have to be a little more specific. If merely removing a former legal right is evil, who were the bad guys

> ought to be denied various legal rights I think you have to be a little more specific. If merely removing a former legal right is evil, who were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed the right to own slaves[0]? Yes, I went there, but hear me out. I think you need to talk about moral rights, not legal rights, because some legal rights came about because of bad laws or the court evolving the laws contrary to the voters' wishes. (By referring to the voters' wishes, I'm not endorsing "might makes right" per se but noting that voters essentially, if indirectly, define what is "legal" so you ought to appeal to morality instead.) Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal?[1] Or since they're dead now, can we hold it against any current official who does not actively support this kind of marriage equality? Is tolerating an unjust status quo less evil than changing it for the worse? Or, what argument can you make to prohibit polygamy that won't sound awfully like the arguments against gay marriage? I'm maybe being crippled by idealism and naivety here, but I guess I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a reason to hate people who don't believe in them, when we're all hypocrites and there's injustice everywhere if you have an open mind. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/the-not-quite-free-state-maryland-dragged-its-feet-on-emancipation-during-civil-war/2013/09/13/a34d35de-fec7-11e2-bd97-676ec24f1f3f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/the-not-qui... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act

JohnBooty 11y ago
I think you have to be a little more specific. If merely removing a former legal right is evil, who were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed the right to own slaves I think the answer to that is clear if you subscribe to the principal that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. It's certainly true that the slaveowners had the rug pulled out from under them in a sense but their legal right to own slaves infringed (to put it mildly) on pretty much every single human right the slaves had. With same-sex marriage, on the other hand, it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights. Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal? You're absolutely right: the polygamy question is very tricky. I can't give you a single objective reason why it shouldn't be legal.[1] It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. (If we discover that there's a wrongfully-convicted person serving time in a state prison, should we make him stay there because we haven't figured out what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?) are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal? I'd say that we should consider their views in the context of the times in which they lived. The human race has come a long way in the last couple of centuries in terms of recognizing human rights. Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress. I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a reason to hate people who don't believe in them This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments. I'm certain there are some exceptions out there but during the entire Eich/Mozilla public debate, I didn't see anybody (certainly not anybody prominent) claiming that Eich was a terrible person or that we should hate him. I certainly don't hate Brendan Eich; he seems like a good person in general. Even if it was the right thing to do, which I think it was, nobody "won" that whole mess. The Mozilla community lost a great contributor. ___ [1] I believe you should be able to legally designate whomever you like as a family member and assign whatever family-related rights you want to them. The government should generally stay out of the morality business as long as everything is between consenting adults. From a purely legal standpoint, titles like "wife" or "brother" or "cousin" are really just titles that confer various sets of default rights and establish a default order of precedence for inheritance and power of attorney. (On a personal level those titles mean much more to me than that, but that's my business)
- scintill76 11y ago
  > it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights. Maybe to you, but others argue that it's bad for society etc. It wasn't so "settled" in 2008 when Eich donated and that cause won the election. I'm not even sure a significant portion calling for his resignation would have supported an apology, if he decided to change his position. This is the opposite of a free, healthy, diverse society. > It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. My intention wasn't to suggest that, but to note that for some reason gay rights are popular and polyamorous rights aren't. If Eich had donated to keep polygamy illegal, not nearly as many people would have cared IMO. People are being denied rights in both cases, but only one is fashionable to support right now. That hypocrisy bothers me, not the legal status of same-sex couples. This is veering further off-topic, but BTW I can think of one reason to not give all the same legal rights to polygamous marriages: it's maybe too easy to "abuse" by marrying yourself to every friend you want to give a piece of your insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc. > Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress. But if you weren't on the right side just 6 years ago, you're viewed just as caveman-like and don't deserve your job? > This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments. Perhaps it's hyperbolic. On the other hand, the counter-arguments invoking the KKK are too. There's a difference between going out in a mob and killing people, or donating money to a reasonably controversial cause that is part of our political process.
  - faddat 11y ago
    He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure, well..... It'd be nice if we could all do work that allows us to voice our exact thoughts at every moment.... or would it?
    - scintill76 11y ago
      > He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. You find them distasteful. That's your opinion, not fact. His support of Prop 8 and the legal ramifications of Prop 8, are the facts here. > These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure So you're only allowed to believe something if you don't actually act on that belief in a way that internet stalkers can find? Hmm, hopefully there's never an unpopular belief someone has that you would say is good, because they'll decide to keep it to themselves instead of risking getting fired. I'm not sure his position was public or loud, at least not until people dragged it into public. All he did was donate, thus getting himself on a legally-required list of donors. There could be dozens of employees at Mozilla, even some execs, who voted for Prop 8 (voting against gay marriage) but didn't fund advocacy groups so that nobody knows. If Brendan Eich hadn't donated but voted and if nobody thought to publicly ask his belief and got an honest answer, he would still be at Mozilla to this day, quietly oppressing employees and infecting the world with his anti-gay views through Firefox. Or not, because I haven't heard any accounts of his political views actually entering the workplace until activists forced them to. To the public and to Mozilla employees, it was pretty much indistinguishable from "kept in a box in his mind."

JohnBooty 11y ago

I think you have to be a little more specific. If merely removing a former legal right is evil, who were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed the right to own slaves I think the answer to that is clear if you subscribe to the principal that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. It's certainly true that the slaveowners had the rug pulled out from under them in a sense but their legal right to own slaves infringed (to put it mildly) on pretty much every single human right the slaves had. With same-sex marriage, on the other hand, it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights. Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal? You're absolutely right: the polygamy question is very tricky. I can't give you a single objective reason why it shouldn't be legal.[1] It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. (If we discover that there's a wrongfully-convicted person serving time in a state prison, should we make him stay there because we haven't figured out what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?) are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal? I'd say that we should consider their views in the context of the times in which they lived. The human race has come a long way in the last couple of centuries in terms of recognizing human rights. Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress. I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a reason to hate people who don't believe in them This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments. I'm certain there are some exceptions out there but during the entire Eich/Mozilla public debate, I didn't see anybody (certainly not anybody prominent) claiming that Eich was a terrible person or that we should hate him. I certainly don't hate Brendan Eich; he seems like a good person in general. Even if it was the right thing to do, which I think it was, nobody "won" that whole mess. The Mozilla community lost a great contributor. ___ [1] I believe you should be able to legally designate whomever you like as a family member and assign whatever family-related rights you want to them. The government should generally stay out of the morality business as long as everything is between consenting adults. From a purely legal standpoint, titles like "wife" or "brother" or "cousin" are really just titles that confer various sets of default rights and establish a default order of precedence for inheritance and power of attorney. (On a personal level those titles mean much more to me than that, but that's my business)

scintill76 11y ago
> it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights. Maybe to you, but others argue that it's bad for society etc. It wasn't so "settled" in 2008 when Eich donated and that cause won the election. I'm not even sure a significant portion calling for his resignation would have supported an apology, if he decided to change his position. This is the opposite of a free, healthy, diverse society. > It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. My intention wasn't to suggest that, but to note that for some reason gay rights are popular and polyamorous rights aren't. If Eich had donated to keep polygamy illegal, not nearly as many people would have cared IMO. People are being denied rights in both cases, but only one is fashionable to support right now. That hypocrisy bothers me, not the legal status of same-sex couples. This is veering further off-topic, but BTW I can think of one reason to not give all the same legal rights to polygamous marriages: it's maybe too easy to "abuse" by marrying yourself to every friend you want to give a piece of your insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc. > Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress. But if you weren't on the right side just 6 years ago, you're viewed just as caveman-like and don't deserve your job? > This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments. Perhaps it's hyperbolic. On the other hand, the counter-arguments invoking the KKK are too. There's a difference between going out in a mob and killing people, or donating money to a reasonably controversial cause that is part of our political process.
- faddat 11y ago
  He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure, well..... It'd be nice if we could all do work that allows us to voice our exact thoughts at every moment.... or would it?
  - scintill76 11y ago
    > He has fucked up personal beliefs-- this is a fact. You find them distasteful. That's your opinion, not fact. His support of Prop 8 and the legal ramifications of Prop 8, are the facts here. > These personal beliefs could have been kept in a box in his mind, but when he spoke on this publicly and loudly as a public figure So you're only allowed to believe something if you don't actually act on that belief in a way that internet stalkers can find? Hmm, hopefully there's never an unpopular belief someone has that you would say is good, because they'll decide to keep it to themselves instead of risking getting fired. I'm not sure his position was public or loud, at least not until people dragged it into public. All he did was donate, thus getting himself on a legally-required list of donors. There could be dozens of employees at Mozilla, even some execs, who voted for Prop 8 (voting against gay marriage) but didn't fund advocacy groups so that nobody knows. If Brendan Eich hadn't donated but voted and if nobody thought to publicly ask his belief and got an honest answer, he would still be at Mozilla to this day, quietly oppressing employees and infecting the world with his anti-gay views through Firefox. Or not, because I haven't heard any accounts of his political views actually entering the workplace until activists forced them to. To the public and to Mozilla employees, it was pretty much indistinguishable from "kept in a box in his mind."