2 ms·

Quoting myself[1] from a few days ago: I think that him wishing to write off a class of people as of lesser standing is a bit disingenuous. Unfortunately, marr

by 67726e 13y ago

Quoting myself[1] from a few days ago: I think that him wishing to write off a class of people as of lesser standing is a bit disingenuous. Unfortunately, marriage has become a mix of religious, economic, and legal meanings. In my experience, it isn't so much hating another group so much as feeling like something sacred to them is being coopted and horribly distorted. Having something with the same economic and legal standings but not called marriage generally seems fine by them. The problem, I think, stems from the fact that we have mixed a religious and legal concept into one. I do realize that some people who fight against gay marriage do it with much vitriol and disgust for gay people, but has Mr. Eich done anything more than donated to a political cause he supports? I'm all for gay marriage, but we unfortunately have a complicated issue that cannot simply be painted as "He hates gay people and wants to deny them their rights" - Why? We don't know his true beliefs as he hasn't shared them with us, and he hasn't demonstrated any further malice. Now unless he starts using the bully pulpit of his CEO position to espouse hatred or otherwise attempts to hurt another group through his position, we should really just let it drop. Besides, he created Javascript. We have more important things to hate him for. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7462670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7462670

ubernostrum 13y ago
Notice that I did not ascribe a motivation; I simply pointed out that Proposition 8 had no other purpose than to make a certain group of people be treated as not equal to every other person under the law. There is no possible charitable reading of its text which suggests any other goal; that is what it aimed to do and what it -- until it was struck down -- succeeded in doing. Ignoring the fact that this person took part in doing that in favor of wondering why they did so misses the point by a number of light-years.
- 67726e 13y ago
  It would be nice if we could take this one action and examine it in a vacuum to determine the character of the person in question. Unfortunately we cannot. Few things are black and white issues, this certainly is not one of them, and to attempt to treat it as such is a foolish proposition. I am very much in favor of gay marriage and I think that denying anyones right under any circumstance is absolutely wrong. However we cannot simply look at issues from an ivory tower and attempt to gain any meaningful resolution.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    However we cannot simply look at issues from an ivory tower and attempt to gain any meaningful resolution. So you believe that fundamental rights should be subjected to majority vote? Or perhaps you believe that equality of all persons before the law is not actually a necessary component of a free society? It is not at all difficult to look at this issue and gain a meaningful resolution. It is only uncomfortable* for some people to do so because of dissonance with other views they hold dear.
    - 67726e 13y ago
      So you believe that fundamental rights should be subjected to majority vote? Or perhaps you believe that equality of all persons before the law is not actually a necessary component of a free society? Not in the least. If you had read and comprehended my initial posting you would realize I propose something of a compromise. We divorce the legal and economic portions of marriage from marriage itself. Couples don't get a "Marriage License" - they get a contract that they sign that grants them the legal and economic protections, rights, etc. and no more. If they want to hold some ceremony or attach any sort of significance to the event, let them. That is up to them. Among the people I've ever spoken with, having a divorced concept of religious marriage and a legal coupling of people seems to be enough. For those that still oppose it? Well fuck 'em. To return to the original point at hand. It is entire speculation of Mr. Eich's intentions. We haven't seen him crusade against "the gays", just oppose "gay marriage" - We don't know what his intentions. No one except for him and perhaps those close to him know. I'm simply offering a reasonable theory as to why he may have offered support to Proposition 8 in response to the theory that he, fundamentally, wishes to strip people of their rights. If Eich wanted to attack gay people and strip them of their rights, well then Proposition 8 was the right vehicle for that attack. However it might well be the case that Proposition 8 offered an imperfect chance for him to preserve what he felt was an attack on a religious belief of his. Call the attack on rights collateral damage at that point. By drawing the entire issue into a summary of Prop 8 itself and attempting to only focus upon that you are implying that his motivation is an attack upon others' rights. I am simply putting forth a counter-theory to that claim. Call it playing devil's advocate if you will. I just see it as attempting to give everyone a fair shake in what otherwise looks like an attempt to characterize someone you do not know based on a single point of data.

by 67726e 13y ago

ubernostrum 13y ago

Notice that I did not ascribe a motivation; I simply pointed out that Proposition 8 had no other purpose than to make a certain group of people be treated as not equal to every other person under the law. There is no possible charitable reading of its text which suggests any other goal; that is what it aimed to do and what it -- until it was struck down -- succeeded in doing. Ignoring the fact that this person took part in doing that in favor of wondering why they did so misses the point by a number of light-years.

67726e 13y ago
It would be nice if we could take this one action and examine it in a vacuum to determine the character of the person in question. Unfortunately we cannot. Few things are black and white issues, this certainly is not one of them, and to attempt to treat it as such is a foolish proposition. I am very much in favor of gay marriage and I think that denying anyones right under any circumstance is absolutely wrong. However we cannot simply look at issues from an ivory tower and attempt to gain any meaningful resolution.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  However we cannot simply look at issues from an ivory tower and attempt to gain any meaningful resolution. So you believe that fundamental rights should be subjected to majority vote? Or perhaps you believe that equality of all persons before the law is not actually a necessary component of a free society? It is not at all difficult to look at this issue and gain a meaningful resolution. It is only uncomfortable* for some people to do so because of dissonance with other views they hold dear.
  - 67726e 13y ago
    So you believe that fundamental rights should be subjected to majority vote? Or perhaps you believe that equality of all persons before the law is not actually a necessary component of a free society? Not in the least. If you had read and comprehended my initial posting you would realize I propose something of a compromise. We divorce the legal and economic portions of marriage from marriage itself. Couples don't get a "Marriage License" - they get a contract that they sign that grants them the legal and economic protections, rights, etc. and no more. If they want to hold some ceremony or attach any sort of significance to the event, let them. That is up to them. Among the people I've ever spoken with, having a divorced concept of religious marriage and a legal coupling of people seems to be enough. For those that still oppose it? Well fuck 'em. To return to the original point at hand. It is entire speculation of Mr. Eich's intentions. We haven't seen him crusade against "the gays", just oppose "gay marriage" - We don't know what his intentions. No one except for him and perhaps those close to him know. I'm simply offering a reasonable theory as to why he may have offered support to Proposition 8 in response to the theory that he, fundamentally, wishes to strip people of their rights. If Eich wanted to attack gay people and strip them of their rights, well then Proposition 8 was the right vehicle for that attack. However it might well be the case that Proposition 8 offered an imperfect chance for him to preserve what he felt was an attack on a religious belief of his. Call the attack on rights collateral damage at that point. By drawing the entire issue into a summary of Prop 8 itself and attempting to only focus upon that you are implying that his motivation is an attack upon others' rights. I am simply putting forth a counter-theory to that claim. Call it playing devil's advocate if you will. I just see it as attempting to give everyone a fair shake in what otherwise looks like an attempt to characterize someone you do not know based on a single point of data.