5 ms·

You cannot simply declare your every worldly desire to be a "civil right". You don't have a civil right to change the meanings of words.

woodruffw 3y ago
I don’t think there’s a point in stretching the author’s claim here: marriage between competent adults is about as firmly within the “civil right” category as anything can be.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  That includes polygamy of course, right? I mean, if all people involved are competent, consenting adults, why wouldn't that be a civil right? Do you agree? Or is that one of those "Let me in, then close the door" type of issues?
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Polygamy is a tough one because historically it has been strongly associated with certain fringe sects that are heavily male dominated, and the women are treated more like household servants than wives. Old school “it isn’t rape if we’re married” types. The women aren’t allow jobs, divorce, or personal finances. Actual, honest to goodness, full-freedom and consent polygamy I personally have zero issue with. Live and let live, as long as you aren’t tell me how to live MY life.
    - p-e-w 3y ago
      So marriage is a civil right, except when people have a gut feeling that it's problematic and throw around "think of the X!" moral panic tantrums. This attitude seems to define civil rights today, from drug prohibition to sexual liberty. Ironically, it very closely resembles how conservative moralism operates and has always operated.
      - TylerE 3y ago
        Not at all what I said. I’m done with your bad faith. Good day. It’s hardly a gut feeling, it’s extremely well documented. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/07/arizona-polygamous-cult-leader-child-abuse-samuel-bateman https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/07/arizona-poly... https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/04/10/commentary-lds-history-of-polygamy-still-used-to-victimize-women/ https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/04/10/comment... https://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-sect12may12-story.html https://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-sect12may12-story.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-member-of-polygamist-sect-moms-aided-warren-jeffs-abuse/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-member-of-polygamist-sect-mo... https://peacefulsocieties.uncg.edu/2011/03/17/polygamist-mormons-and-amish-share-experiences-of-abuse/ https://peacefulsocieties.uncg.edu/2011/03/17/polygamist-mor...
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I'll reframe this for you: in a liberal society, we default to open social policies rather than closed ones. There's no moral or principled legal basis for the civil right of marriage being extended to only straight couples. Restricting polygamy does have a principled legal basis: it's historically associated with subjugation, and you don't have a civil right to subjugate others. If and when that association vanishes (i.e., society is convinced that all parties are able to competently consent), then there will be no legal basis for excluding them from the civil right of marriage. Your "ick" response is not a valid basis.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
You seem to be conflating the legal definition of marriage with a christian definition of marriage. While both are malleable, it's well within the scope of government to alter legal terms. In fact that's precisely what Eich was trying to do in the first place.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  If Eich was legally trying to change legal terms using legal means, then what is the problem?
  - spencerflem 3y ago
    Because we like gay marriage, duh.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    I was not the one making a claim that legal terms are immutable. My argument is that by working to deny civil rights to a subset of what would become his employees he is incapable of leading Mozilla.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      Or it makes _them_ incapable of working for Mozilla. If you can't handle having a working relationship with someone that disagrees with you, then what kind of colleague will you be? Are you going to tolerate a coworker that disagrees with you politically? Are you going to be able to manage or be managed by someone with a different background to you? Someone that won't work for a company whose CEO donated in 2008 to a mainstream political cause (widely supported across the political spectrum including by the left-wing President of the time) is not the sort of person anyone would want to work with, tbh!
      - inferiorhuman 3y ago
        This isn't a mere political disagreement, this is someone actively working to deny civil rights. Now there's a few ways to approach that. Look at your emotional reaction, screeching that you can't redefine marriage (a mutable legal term) and the rank hypocrisy of that argument in the face of Eich doing his best to redefine marriage to suit his predilections. Now consider how strong your opinions are in spite of the fact that legalizing same-sex marriage does not negatively effect you in any way whatsoever. Imagine how strongly someone would feel if Eich's campaign to redefine marriage (and deny you the legal protectons and benefits associated with marrage) actually effected you. Alternatively, let's assume your hot take is true, that the real problem is employees being incapable of working for someone trying to deny civil rights. Imagine that you want to hire a CEO that would render large swaths of your company incapable of working for you. You don't see a problem with that? widely supported across the political spectrum including by the left-wing President of the time If you're just going to make shit up to support your argument, it's awful hard to take your hyperventilating seriously. Obama publicly condemned Prop 8 and didn't equivocate. Even the notoriously homophobic Feinstein opposed Prop 8.

woodruffw 3y ago

I don’t think there’s a point in stretching the author’s claim here: marriage between competent adults is about as firmly within the “civil right” category as anything can be.

p-e-w 3y ago
That includes polygamy of course, right? I mean, if all people involved are competent, consenting adults, why wouldn't that be a civil right? Do you agree? Or is that one of those "Let me in, then close the door" type of issues?
- TylerE 3y ago
  Polygamy is a tough one because historically it has been strongly associated with certain fringe sects that are heavily male dominated, and the women are treated more like household servants than wives. Old school “it isn’t rape if we’re married” types. The women aren’t allow jobs, divorce, or personal finances. Actual, honest to goodness, full-freedom and consent polygamy I personally have zero issue with. Live and let live, as long as you aren’t tell me how to live MY life.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    So marriage is a civil right, except when people have a gut feeling that it's problematic and throw around "think of the X!" moral panic tantrums. This attitude seems to define civil rights today, from drug prohibition to sexual liberty. Ironically, it very closely resembles how conservative moralism operates and has always operated.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      Not at all what I said. I’m done with your bad faith. Good day. It’s hardly a gut feeling, it’s extremely well documented. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/07/arizona-polygamous-cult-leader-child-abuse-samuel-bateman https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/07/arizona-poly... https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/04/10/commentary-lds-history-of-polygamy-still-used-to-victimize-women/ https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/04/10/comment... https://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-sect12may12-story.html https://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-sect12may12-story.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-member-of-polygamist-sect-moms-aided-warren-jeffs-abuse/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-member-of-polygamist-sect-mo... https://peacefulsocieties.uncg.edu/2011/03/17/polygamist-mormons-and-amish-share-experiences-of-abuse/ https://peacefulsocieties.uncg.edu/2011/03/17/polygamist-mor...
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I'll reframe this for you: in a liberal society, we default to open social policies rather than closed ones. There's no moral or principled legal basis for the civil right of marriage being extended to only straight couples. Restricting polygamy does have a principled legal basis: it's historically associated with subjugation, and you don't have a civil right to subjugate others. If and when that association vanishes (i.e., society is convinced that all parties are able to competently consent), then there will be no legal basis for excluding them from the civil right of marriage. Your "ick" response is not a valid basis.

inferiorhuman 3y ago

You seem to be conflating the legal definition of marriage with a christian definition of marriage. While both are malleable, it's well within the scope of government to alter legal terms. In fact that's precisely what Eich was trying to do in the first place.

p-e-w 3y ago
If Eich was legally trying to change legal terms using legal means, then what is the problem?
- spencerflem 3y ago
  Because we like gay marriage, duh.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  I was not the one making a claim that legal terms are immutable. My argument is that by working to deny civil rights to a subset of what would become his employees he is incapable of leading Mozilla.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    Or it makes _them_ incapable of working for Mozilla. If you can't handle having a working relationship with someone that disagrees with you, then what kind of colleague will you be? Are you going to tolerate a coworker that disagrees with you politically? Are you going to be able to manage or be managed by someone with a different background to you? Someone that won't work for a company whose CEO donated in 2008 to a mainstream political cause (widely supported across the political spectrum including by the left-wing President of the time) is not the sort of person anyone would want to work with, tbh!
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      This isn't a mere political disagreement, this is someone actively working to deny civil rights. Now there's a few ways to approach that. Look at your emotional reaction, screeching that you can't redefine marriage (a mutable legal term) and the rank hypocrisy of that argument in the face of Eich doing his best to redefine marriage to suit his predilections. Now consider how strong your opinions are in spite of the fact that legalizing same-sex marriage does not negatively effect you in any way whatsoever. Imagine how strongly someone would feel if Eich's campaign to redefine marriage (and deny you the legal protectons and benefits associated with marrage) actually effected you. Alternatively, let's assume your hot take is true, that the real problem is employees being incapable of working for someone trying to deny civil rights. Imagine that you want to hire a CEO that would render large swaths of your company incapable of working for you. You don't see a problem with that? widely supported across the political spectrum including by the left-wing President of the time If you're just going to make shit up to support your argument, it's awful hard to take your hyperventilating seriously. Obama publicly condemned Prop 8 and didn't equivocate. Even the notoriously homophobic Feinstein opposed Prop 8.