4 ms·

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

by 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

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.