5 ms·

People, also, used to define marriage as being between two people of the same race. Let us dispense of this tangent once and for all: Marriage is a civil right.

People, also, used to define marriage as being between two people of the same race. Let us dispense of this tangent once and for all: Marriage is a civil right. It is the cornerstone of this civil rights movement, as it was to the last one, and the one before that, and all the ones that haven't happened yet. The cry "marriage for all" is not politically correct; we would like it to become politically correct -- what a milestone that would be. We aren't shaming Eich because he's politically incorrect. We are shaming him because he chose to join a long line of people who have circumscribed marriage in the name of tradition or fear or ignorance. People who use their money and resources taking something that requires nothing of them to give. People who have been proven wrong, time and time again. People who we, regretfully, did not shame at the time.

victorhooi 13y ago
Sorry, but the whole race versus gay marriage thing has been done to death, and proven patently false. Nobody is stopping gay people from being together. Nor, in many countries/states, are they stopped from claiming the same benefits (e.g. via civil unions). This is simply about them redefining marriage to encompass any two humans, rather than just a man and a woman. I'm not going to go into whether that's "right" or not - that's way off topic here, and is only going to descent to a flame war - this isn't the forum for that. However, this is about redefining a word - marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and to claim otherwise is blatant historical revisionism. Tradition is not necessarily "right" though, so they're certainly within rights to claim they feel the word should be redefined. Just like Eichs is within right to say no, marriage should be defined the same. And Eichs was classy enough to keep it out of his work - by all reports, he's never discriminated against gay people, or had anything against them - he's simply got his own views of what "marriage" should mean.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- gverri 13y ago
  Nobody?! Uganda? Russia? India? http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/31/how-evangelicals-won-a-culture-war-and-lost-a-generation/ http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/31/how-evangelicals-wo... "Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course." All this over a word?! An etymology war... #not.
  - marshray 13y ago
    YEAH! Mozilla and Uganda ... I get the two confused all the time!!!
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    Err, couple of corrections. On a geographical front - the US is a different country to Uganda/Russia/India. I was speaking on the topic at hand - which is about Brandon Eichs, a US citizen, supporting a US piece of legislation, and about Mozilla, a US organisation who he works for. Perhaps it's slightly US-centric - but then this is a US-based site. If you want articles about other countries, you're free to submit them. And secondly, on the religious front - Africa as a whole is not particularly homosexual friendly. I suspect part of this is cultural - they're just very conservative in how they view relationships/marriage. This isn't about religion, but simply about their society as a whole. For example, arranged marriages are still common, and they frown very strongly on things like adultery. So to somehow try to link it to a Californian legislation about legalistic definitions of marriages versus civil unions is a big disingenuous. Russia and India likewise are two countries that are quite conservative in their values. It's the same in China -they're most definitely not a Christian society by any stretch (Christianity is basically a punishable offence), but they also don't like LBGT relationships. The funny thing is - you don't see the same level of noise about this issue in Muslim countries. I've always wondered why that is.

victorhooi 13y ago

Sorry, but the whole race versus gay marriage thing has been done to death, and proven patently false. Nobody is stopping gay people from being together. Nor, in many countries/states, are they stopped from claiming the same benefits (e.g. via civil unions). This is simply about them redefining marriage to encompass any two humans, rather than just a man and a woman. I'm not going to go into whether that's "right" or not - that's way off topic here, and is only going to descent to a flame war - this isn't the forum for that. However, this is about redefining a word - marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and to claim otherwise is blatant historical revisionism. Tradition is not necessarily "right" though, so they're certainly within rights to claim they feel the word should be redefined. Just like Eichs is within right to say no, marriage should be defined the same. And Eichs was classy enough to keep it out of his work - by all reports, he's never discriminated against gay people, or had anything against them - he's simply got his own views of what "marriage" should mean.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
gverri 13y ago
Nobody?! Uganda? Russia? India? http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/31/how-evangelicals-won-a-culture-war-and-lost-a-generation/ http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/31/how-evangelicals-wo... "Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course." All this over a word?! An etymology war... #not.
- marshray 13y ago
  YEAH! Mozilla and Uganda ... I get the two confused all the time!!!
- victorhooi 13y ago
  Err, couple of corrections. On a geographical front - the US is a different country to Uganda/Russia/India. I was speaking on the topic at hand - which is about Brandon Eichs, a US citizen, supporting a US piece of legislation, and about Mozilla, a US organisation who he works for. Perhaps it's slightly US-centric - but then this is a US-based site. If you want articles about other countries, you're free to submit them. And secondly, on the religious front - Africa as a whole is not particularly homosexual friendly. I suspect part of this is cultural - they're just very conservative in how they view relationships/marriage. This isn't about religion, but simply about their society as a whole. For example, arranged marriages are still common, and they frown very strongly on things like adultery. So to somehow try to link it to a Californian legislation about legalistic definitions of marriages versus civil unions is a big disingenuous. Russia and India likewise are two countries that are quite conservative in their values. It's the same in China -they're most definitely not a Christian society by any stretch (Christianity is basically a punishable offence), but they also don't like LBGT relationships. The funny thing is - you don't see the same level of noise about this issue in Muslim countries. I've always wondered why that is.