4 ms·

I sort of thought we had had this discussion already. Gay people don’t have heterosexual relationships in the same way a straight person does, yes they are free

I sort of thought we had had this discussion already. Gay people don’t have heterosexual relationships in the same way a straight person does, yes they are free to marry, but not in the way they’d actually want to. Also the very best you can get to about marriage as a traditional even religious institution is maybe the government shouldn’t be running it. Thinking otherwise isn’t just an opinion a bit out of the mainstream anymore at least among the class that works for tech companies. Can you imagine if he’d donated to a cause that was against inter racial marriages?

mongol 5y ago
> Can you imagine if he’d donated to a cause that was against inter racial marriages? That is not the same thing and is far from the point I am making. It would be the same thing if he argued, "gay people can't marry, period". But an argument that "marriage is a life long commitment between a man and a woman" is something different. Not about gay people, it is about marriage as an institution with a special status. Note, I am not entering this discussion to argue what is right or wrong. But I think it is an entirely valid opinion to have, and not something to be cancelled for.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  But the point I'm making is that being against interracial marriage, even if it were somehow just about something like marriage is definitionally not interracial would rightly be considered cancelable to most people. The reason I think that the examples seem different is merely that their badness seems different to you. There isn't some set of things that are clearly ok to sanction someone over and some set that aren't. It's all merely about how clearcut you think the issue is and that will always be political. To be clear though I do think this is a clear cut issue. Not to get into the weeds on it, but I do think your options are either believing that marriage should not be a function of government at all, or believing that marriage between two same sex people should be allowed

mongol 5y ago

> Can you imagine if he’d donated to a cause that was against inter racial marriages? That is not the same thing and is far from the point I am making. It would be the same thing if he argued, "gay people can't marry, period". But an argument that "marriage is a life long commitment between a man and a woman" is something different. Not about gay people, it is about marriage as an institution with a special status. Note, I am not entering this discussion to argue what is right or wrong. But I think it is an entirely valid opinion to have, and not something to be cancelled for.

space_fountain 5y ago
But the point I'm making is that being against interracial marriage, even if it were somehow just about something like marriage is definitionally not interracial would rightly be considered cancelable to most people. The reason I think that the examples seem different is merely that their badness seems different to you. There isn't some set of things that are clearly ok to sanction someone over and some set that aren't. It's all merely about how clearcut you think the issue is and that will always be political. To be clear though I do think this is a clear cut issue. Not to get into the weeds on it, but I do think your options are either believing that marriage should not be a function of government at all, or believing that marriage between two same sex people should be allowed