5 ms·

>Opposing gay marriage is a sign of bigotry and hate, by that fact alone. No, it is not. One can actually have empathy with gays and believe that marriage can

>Opposing gay marriage is a sign of bigotry and hate, by that fact alone. No, it is not. One can actually have empathy with gays and believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I don't agree with those beliefs, but I'm speaking from experience that there are many people who believe that marriage has a very religious connotation. Can you please cite a single interaction in which Brendan has looked down upon someone personally due to their sexual identity?

scarmig 13y ago
When he donated money to remove a law in order to deny gay people their human rights. You can't just slap "but it's my religionnnnn" on something and call it a day. It's like you haven't bothered to read the rhetoric that right-wing politicians used in the segregated South or apartheid-era South Africa.
- intslack 13y ago
  I'm not saying you should respect his beliefs. I'm saying you should stop calling him a bigot because you don't know what he actually believes, and don't have any evidence that he's homophobic. All we know is that he donated $1000 to reaffirm, in law, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Perhaps he believes that the state should remove all recognition of marriage and just recognize civil unions going forward for everyone with the benefits from marriage. We don't know, because he hasn't talked about his beliefs. And honestly, I don't believe they're that important when Mozilla has reaffirmed their strive for equality.
  - zorpner 13y ago
    > Perhaps he believes that the state should remove all recognition of marriage... Just a heads-up, this is a strawman developed by anti-same-sex-marriage proponents to provide a possible (though not plausible) reason other than denying people their rights why someone might oppose same-sex marriage (and you also have to buy that someone who wanted to grant same-sex couples those legal right would vote/donate/campaign/etc to deny them). If you're going to assert it, you need to have specific evidence that the individual in question actually believes that.
    - intslack 13y ago
      I used the modifier "perhaps", which was followed by acknowledgment that we don't know his beliefs (because he won't talk about them except in person.) Brendan is (or was at the time of donation) ignorant, there's no sense in disputing that. I'm just tired of people labelling him as anti-gay, bigot, homophobe, etc.
      - SimHacker 13y ago
        Perhaps you're an apologist for bigots. I know him. You're wrong. He's an unrepentant homophobic bigot.
- a8000 13y ago
  Marriage is not really a human right anyways, apart from the symbolic gesture the state grants priviledges like tax benefits, adoptions rights and so on. Typically the state has to have some kind of justification for granting priviledges in this case it was probably motivated by religion, but it could also be tied to potential child production / child care. Ideally laws would be reformed in such a way that the priviledges granted today are tied to something other than you are a man and woman and want to marry. It could be just you are two or more people who want to marry. In my opinion things especially tax benefits should be tied to the fact that you are actually providing a service (like raising kids, your own or adopted, but maybe just caring for each other financially is enough).
- victorhooi 13y ago
  Really, denied them their human rights? I think you might be overblowing the horn just slightly there. Sigh. Nobody is being oppressed. In most progressive countries, civil unions are available, which confer exactly the same benefits and rights as a traditional marriage. In fact, in many countries, you don't even need to do that - simply having a de-facto relationship will be enough. So basically, it's about a word - in this case "marriage", which has traditionally been between a man and a woman, they want to redefine it to include any two humans. I'm not saying that tradition is "right" just because we've done it that way for thousands of years - maybe it's "right" that words should change over time. However, to try to claim the moral high ground by making disingenuous comparisons to Apartheid is pretty disgusting for all those that actually suffered through Apartheid. What next? Comparisons to the pogrums?
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Not overblowing at all. Marriage is a human right. Since you're in such an affected high dudgeon over apartheid [1], here's a question for you: was the ban on interracial marriage something anti-apartheid activists blew off as just a jolly good time that's not at all oppressive, or did they consider it part and parcel of an oppressive system? [1] An aside: Do you know anything at all about apartheid? Did you actually protest against it? Do you you know about the deep links between the LGBT-rights movement and anti-apartheid movement, which was a factor that led to South Africa's being the only constitution in Africa, and one of the first in the world, to give formal equal rights to the LGBT community and subsequently legalize gay marriage?
    - victorhooi 13y ago
      Well, your point is actually a logical inequality - apartheid was against the idea of interracial relationships, married or not. It's not exactly like these interracial couples were offered a "union" which conferred the same rights, but don't call it a marriage. But even if they were, it's still not close to the current battle over gay "marriage". For most of recorded human history, the concept of marriage was very much tied to the idea of family. For example, Susan Treggiari, a professor of Roman history writes "Matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her". Homosexual relationships cannot by definition create a family - they are not a procreative relationship. I'm not saying they're wrong because of this - this is simply a biological fact. This is what a lot of gay marriage activists seem to miss - it's not opposition to the idea of them together. If they want to be together, they will be together. It's simply that they wish to come along and redefine an existing word, to fit a new definition of what a family is. Perhaps as a society, we will agree - and we will allow "marriage" between any two humans, and gender will become irrelevant. However, to simply come along and assume, oh, a man and woman get it, so a man and man should get it automatically is either being intentionally blind, or very presumptuous. A man and woman family is different to one composed of a man and a man - not because one is more valuable or not valuable - but simply because of their roles. It's like saying, oh, a woman gets pregnant, so she must be more valuable than the man in a marriage. Well no, they are different - they play different parts, and we call them different things.
gdilla 13y ago
Maybe marriage certainly is between a man and a women within THEIR RELIGIOUS point of view. And that's fine. Their church can be as exclusionary as they want to be. But the US government shouldn't be exclusionary. Marriage in the US affords civil rights and distinctions (inheritance, consent, taxes) that should simply be equal for all citizens. Your religion and their obsolete views of things makes no difference. Who cares if your church or temple won't do a gay ceremony.
isleyaardvark 13y ago
Here's one instance: he donated money to prevent people from getting married due to their sexual identity. For some reason denying gays their equal rights is somehow ok as long as the person is not foaming at the mouth, and if they're refusing to be open-minded about their religious beliefs. I don't get it.

scarmig 13y ago

When he donated money to remove a law in order to deny gay people their human rights. You can't just slap "but it's my religionnnnn" on something and call it a day. It's like you haven't bothered to read the rhetoric that right-wing politicians used in the segregated South or apartheid-era South Africa.

intslack 13y ago
I'm not saying you should respect his beliefs. I'm saying you should stop calling him a bigot because you don't know what he actually believes, and don't have any evidence that he's homophobic. All we know is that he donated $1000 to reaffirm, in law, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Perhaps he believes that the state should remove all recognition of marriage and just recognize civil unions going forward for everyone with the benefits from marriage. We don't know, because he hasn't talked about his beliefs. And honestly, I don't believe they're that important when Mozilla has reaffirmed their strive for equality.
- zorpner 13y ago
  > Perhaps he believes that the state should remove all recognition of marriage... Just a heads-up, this is a strawman developed by anti-same-sex-marriage proponents to provide a possible (though not plausible) reason other than denying people their rights why someone might oppose same-sex marriage (and you also have to buy that someone who wanted to grant same-sex couples those legal right would vote/donate/campaign/etc to deny them). If you're going to assert it, you need to have specific evidence that the individual in question actually believes that.
  - intslack 13y ago
    I used the modifier "perhaps", which was followed by acknowledgment that we don't know his beliefs (because he won't talk about them except in person.) Brendan is (or was at the time of donation) ignorant, there's no sense in disputing that. I'm just tired of people labelling him as anti-gay, bigot, homophobe, etc.
    - SimHacker 13y ago
      Perhaps you're an apologist for bigots. I know him. You're wrong. He's an unrepentant homophobic bigot.
a8000 13y ago
Marriage is not really a human right anyways, apart from the symbolic gesture the state grants priviledges like tax benefits, adoptions rights and so on. Typically the state has to have some kind of justification for granting priviledges in this case it was probably motivated by religion, but it could also be tied to potential child production / child care. Ideally laws would be reformed in such a way that the priviledges granted today are tied to something other than you are a man and woman and want to marry. It could be just you are two or more people who want to marry. In my opinion things especially tax benefits should be tied to the fact that you are actually providing a service (like raising kids, your own or adopted, but maybe just caring for each other financially is enough).
victorhooi 13y ago
Really, denied them their human rights? I think you might be overblowing the horn just slightly there. Sigh. Nobody is being oppressed. In most progressive countries, civil unions are available, which confer exactly the same benefits and rights as a traditional marriage. In fact, in many countries, you don't even need to do that - simply having a de-facto relationship will be enough. So basically, it's about a word - in this case "marriage", which has traditionally been between a man and a woman, they want to redefine it to include any two humans. I'm not saying that tradition is "right" just because we've done it that way for thousands of years - maybe it's "right" that words should change over time. However, to try to claim the moral high ground by making disingenuous comparisons to Apartheid is pretty disgusting for all those that actually suffered through Apartheid. What next? Comparisons to the pogrums?
- scarmig 13y ago
  Not overblowing at all. Marriage is a human right. Since you're in such an affected high dudgeon over apartheid [1], here's a question for you: was the ban on interracial marriage something anti-apartheid activists blew off as just a jolly good time that's not at all oppressive, or did they consider it part and parcel of an oppressive system? [1] An aside: Do you know anything at all about apartheid? Did you actually protest against it? Do you you know about the deep links between the LGBT-rights movement and anti-apartheid movement, which was a factor that led to South Africa's being the only constitution in Africa, and one of the first in the world, to give formal equal rights to the LGBT community and subsequently legalize gay marriage?
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    Well, your point is actually a logical inequality - apartheid was against the idea of interracial relationships, married or not. It's not exactly like these interracial couples were offered a "union" which conferred the same rights, but don't call it a marriage. But even if they were, it's still not close to the current battle over gay "marriage". For most of recorded human history, the concept of marriage was very much tied to the idea of family. For example, Susan Treggiari, a professor of Roman history writes "Matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her". Homosexual relationships cannot by definition create a family - they are not a procreative relationship. I'm not saying they're wrong because of this - this is simply a biological fact. This is what a lot of gay marriage activists seem to miss - it's not opposition to the idea of them together. If they want to be together, they will be together. It's simply that they wish to come along and redefine an existing word, to fit a new definition of what a family is. Perhaps as a society, we will agree - and we will allow "marriage" between any two humans, and gender will become irrelevant. However, to simply come along and assume, oh, a man and woman get it, so a man and man should get it automatically is either being intentionally blind, or very presumptuous. A man and woman family is different to one composed of a man and a man - not because one is more valuable or not valuable - but simply because of their roles. It's like saying, oh, a woman gets pregnant, so she must be more valuable than the man in a marriage. Well no, they are different - they play different parts, and we call them different things.

gdilla 13y ago

Maybe marriage certainly is between a man and a women within THEIR RELIGIOUS point of view. And that's fine. Their church can be as exclusionary as they want to be. But the US government shouldn't be exclusionary. Marriage in the US affords civil rights and distinctions (inheritance, consent, taxes) that should simply be equal for all citizens. Your religion and their obsolete views of things makes no difference. Who cares if your church or temple won't do a gay ceremony.

isleyaardvark 13y ago

Here's one instance: he donated money to prevent people from getting married due to their sexual identity. For some reason denying gays their equal rights is somehow ok as long as the person is not foaming at the mouth, and if they're refusing to be open-minded about their religious beliefs. I don't get it.