10 ms·

Many of us view being anti-gay just as absolutely unacceptable as being pro-slavery or denying suffrage to women. It's not simply a "political view" in 2014. It

• peterwwillis 13y ago
  Many of us view being homosexual just as absolutely unacceptable as being pro-choice or denying husbands the right to beat their wives. It's not simply a "moral view" in 2014. It's not an opinion. It's flat out wrong and supporters of that unnatural way of life reap what they sow.
  • Crito 13y ago
    "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." - Sir Charles Napier
  • beggi 13y ago
    Not sure if you are being a troll. Do you think it's unacceptable to deny people the right to beat their spouses or do you not understand how double negative works?
    • hyperbovine 13y ago
      It's this thing where you do the same post verbatim with a few words swapped, and something witty and ironic pops out. Unfortunately it didn't really turn out in this case...
• azth 13y ago
  Then why does that not follow to followers of Christianity or Judaism for instance, given that both religions do not tolerate homosexuality? Should we get rid of those people in the workplace as well?
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Then why does that not follow to followers of Christianity or Judaism for instance, given that both religions do not tolerate homosexuality? "Christianity" and "Judaism" are not monolithic institutions and substantial subsets of both tolerate (or actually accept, which isn't the same thing) homosexuality.
  • meritt 13y ago
    Religions change over time. Traditional Judaism and early Christianity both allowed slavery and had laws governing it. Today they completely abhor the notion of slavery. The current pope is backing off on Catholicism's stance on homosexuality.
    • sp332 13y ago
      There are different kinds of slavery. Nearly all systems throughout history treated slaves better than American slavery did. Slavery in the law given to Israel back then was not racist, it was not usually permanent (all slaves were freed every 7 years unless they chose to stay), and the slaves still had some rights and protections. So even someone who supported that kind of slavery could still be against American-style slavery.
    • protomyth 13y ago
      not so much http://world.time.com/2013/09/25/pope-francis-excommunicates-priest-who-supports-womens-ordination-and-gays/ http://world.time.com/2013/09/25/pope-francis-excommunicates...
  • GVIrish 13y ago
    I don't know about Judaism, but homosexuality is not something that is explicity banned in Christianity. Yeah there are some bible passages against it, but there are also bible passages condoning slavery, polygamy, forced marriage etc. If one were to be a strict adherent to the bible one would have to take some far-out stances on some issues. Truth is that just because there are some parts of a religion that may support discrimination or other negative behavior, doesn't mean followers of that religion have to agree with that. Many people ignore the parts they don't agree with.
• rainmaking 13y ago
  It could be merely misguided.
• crazygringo 13y ago
  It would be nice if the world were that black-and-white, but it's not. Plenty of Republicans etc. also believe that abortion, or even contraception provided by your health plan, is "absolutely unacceptable", "flat out wrong" and a "backwards mentality". But we live in a democracy, where we need to get along. Black-and-white absolutist thinking doesn't really help anyone. You may not think it's "simply a political view" in 2014, but many other people do. Fortunately, we live in a pluralistic society with freedom of expression where we're all allowed to have and share our views, which is the whole basis of democracy. And this is very different from women's suffrage, because nobody's right to vote, or their participation in the democratic process, is being legally affected here. Other things are being affected, but not people's representation as citizens in a democracy.
  • grifpete 13y ago
    Totally agree - well said.
  • hyperbovine 13y ago
    Segregation, marriage inequality, restrictions on abortion and contraception--what do each of these have in common? It's that the government is imposing an arbitrary value system on the behavior of private citizens. This is acceptable when said behavior could harm others. In these other cases, it feels pretty off to have this happening in 2014. (Do not respond to me about fetuses.)
    • mynewwork 13y ago
      I love when people end an argument with "Do not respond to me about <the obviously controversial part of my opinion>". The fact is, people from all backgrounds and political viewpoints hold opinions which they view as absolute. Whether that's "being anti-gay is equivalent to being pro-slavery" or "abortion is murder", people are going to disagree even if they are both guided by the same fundamentally good goals.
      • hyperbovine 13y ago
• peeters 13y ago
  I've always thought "anti-gay marriage = anti-gay" as being a false equivocation. Can someone convince me otherwise? Heck, at the very least there are people who are anti-marriage (from a political POV), for whom it would be discriminatory to exclude gay marriage from that position. You cite slavery. Was every single person who was against emancipation "pro-slavery"? Was there no room for nuance? I mean maybe some people really didn't like slavery, but hated the prospect of civil war even more.
  • ywgdana 13y ago
    Because marriage isn't just some symbolic institution. Denying marriage to couples radically, unequivocally, directly harms them in legal matters like being able to make medical decisions during emergencies, property rights, benefits at work. So when someone is "anti-gay marriage", then yes they are taking a position that will harm gay folks. So yes, it is anti-gay.
    • peeters 13y ago
      And yet, put it that way to a gay marriage opponent, and I guarantee you a sizable portion would respond as follows: A: You're against gay marriage? So you don't think gay partners should share the same legal status when making medical decisions, in property rights, or work benefits? B: Wow, I never thought about it that way. No, I think they should share all of those benefits. A: So you're for gay marriage? B: No, I just think all of those rights should be granted outside of the marital context.
      • curun1r 13y ago
        That's the frustrating part about this issue...it's basically all semantics. The simple solution would have been to remove all recognition of marriage by the government and replace it with the concept of civil unions between any two consenting adults. There shouldn't even be a requirement of a romantic relationship...why should the fact that two people have sex or live together have any bearing on how they file their tax returns, how medical decisions are made or how property is disposed of? Hell, there's plenty of married people who are separated and no longer having sex or live together and yet they enjoy the legal perks of marriage. Once you limit the government's role to recognizing a contract, albeit one that's common and standardized, between two adults, marriage becomes the domain of the church. If your church wants to deny marriage to homosexuals, the first amendment gives them the right to do that.
• smutticus 13y ago
  "anti-gay" is an oversimplification. Eich gave money to a campaign opposing the legalization of same sex marriage. That's a far cry from anti-gay. He may very well be anti-gay, whatever it is that means, but this particular donation does not equate to that sentiment.
• tootie 13y ago
  That's not it. Being anti-gay is perfectly acceptable. Passing laws that create official discrimination is not ok.
• checker659 13y ago
  Look, I'm as much for gay rights as the next dude, but what kind of world are you trying to create by cornering people who hold opinions different than yours? Not cool. Reading your comment, the word 'witch hunt' comes to mind. Just because they wronged you doesn't mean you wrong them too.
  • ugexe 13y ago
    I think their point was to expose the hypocrisy of okcupid putting up an anti-firefox splash screen.
  • hga 13y ago
    Not so sure about "what kind of world", but these sorts of things, including the infinite extension of "the personal is the political", are setting up the conditions for our cold civil war to get hot. Which will be much worst than things currently are, and will lead a "kind of world" that history tells us will almost certainly be worse than what we had before.
• DatBear 13y ago
  Was it a political view in 2008?
• hosh 13y ago
  Whoa, whoa, whoa! There is a vast difference between feeling strongly about an individual who feels strongly against folks who are gay, and judging anyone and everyone based upon their political views. The latter comes from a lack of empathy. One sees the label and stops seeing the person. That lack of empathy is exactly what drives hatred and bigotry. I'm not saying doing so is hypocritical. For conflicts like this to come to an end, all parties need to connect to individuals rather than knee-jerk reacting.
• devilshaircut 13y ago
  I agree with you. And frankly I am so appalled by the false equivalence offered by many 'liberals' on this issue. Rather than recognize that this freedom falls squarely within the preamble of the US Declaration of Independence, it is instead suggested by these people that it is a 'private' or 'religiously-motivated' 'belief' that therefore falls outside of critique, protest, or public protection (etc.). I'm sorry but this is simply not a moral case to make. As I indicated before, I find it so appalling that you see such views espoused by the 'liberal' party of the US.
  • pc86 13y ago
    At the risk of being pedantic, the Declaration of Independence does not "grant" rights in the same manner that the Bill of Rights does, and really can't be used in the same context when attempting to make a Constitutional argument.
    • devilshaircut 13y ago
      I didn't say that it "granted" anything. I said that in the US was founded on a specific idea of freedom. You're not being pedantic because what you say simply does not apply. Explain where I attempted to make a "Constitutional argument" - I didn't mention the Constitution a single time.
      • pc86 13y ago
        I was merely saying that this point: > this freedom falls squarely within the preamble of the US Declaration of Independence whether accurate or not, doesn't matter, because of the DOI isn't any sort of binding document. It can say that every man, woman and child deserve their own puppy, but that's not going to make it any more or less likely to happen.
        • devilshaircut 13y ago
          "Merely" - no; your comment was nothing less than a straw man argument. I didn't say "Constitutional" anywhere, nor did I imply it. I stated unequivocally that it goes against the values of freedom the US was founded on. The DoI does not say "everyone deserves a puppy". Give me a break and please take your straw man argument elsewhere.
• cek994 13y ago
  Even if this were true (which it isn't), the slippery slope argument most definitely applies here. Are you going to reject the veneration of our founding fathers because they held slaves? What if a company has middle managers who are against same sex marriage, or engineers? Do we boycott them as well? You are advocating for intellectual puritanism in the name of protection of diversity -- an utterly incoherent position. Also, we're talking about political speech from many years ago, for a cause that the majority of Californians passed -- and, lest we forget, President Obama, liberal hero he is, did not support gay marriage until 2012. Many, many religious conservatives (hundreds of millions of them, in fact) would argue against your conflation of anti-gay marriage with anti-gay. And just because you seem unable to fathom dissenting views on this issue doesn't mean they don't exist.
• nilkn 13y ago
  I don't think you realize that there are (quite a few) people in the country who think being pro-gay-marriage is absolutely unacceptable. Until nearly 100% of the population accepts it as a basic and obvious axiom, it does not even remotely have the same status as being pro-slavery or denying suffrage to women.
  • Loughla 13y ago
    Your argument is that no one was ever in support of slavery, or in support of denying women the right to vote? That is a bit ridiculous, you realize that, correct?
    • nilkn 13y ago
      No, that is not what I was saying at all. Go to any of the thousands of rural communities in the United States, especially in the midwest, and you will find many people who will strongly stand by their opinion that gay marriage should not be legal. Just because you believe that gay rights are as fundamental as women's suffrage does not mean that, as a political issue, gay rights are as decided nationwide as women's suffrage.
      • Loughla 13y ago
        Women's suffrage, many, many years ago, would have been in the same boat that gay rights are now. Go back many years before that, and slavery would be similarly as controversial. Do you not understand that? Saying that gay rights aren't as fundamental of an issue because it's not as cut and dry today as women's suffrage and slavery are today is patently ridiculous. Those issues have had decades to pass from controversial to relatively settled to settled. Age of an issue does not dictate importance.
        • nilkn 13y ago
          > Saying that gay rights aren't as fundamental of an issue because it's not as cut and dry today as women's suffrage and slavery are today is patently ridiculous. That's really not what I wrote at all, though.
• gus_massa 13y ago
  Just in case, I agree with gay marriage, women suffrage and I’m against slavery. But I think that the people that disagree with my opinion have the right to have a different opinion. Are you sure that all your other opinions are also correct? It’s interesting to read again http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html .
• pc86 13y ago
  Let's not pretend that these people are donating money to the KKK or Focus on the Family. They are donating to major political candidates, with complex issue platforms of which gay marriage is almost certainly a small part. I don't see any names on here that could be considered "champions" of traditional marriage. Are you saying that every single person who donated anything to Mitt Romney or George W. Bush should be shunned and "reap what they sow?"
• smsm42 13y ago
  It is an opinion, what else could it be? You think it is wrong, but I also think many other prevalent mainstream opinions are wrong and injurious to my rights - such as banning me under the threat of imprisonment (or being shot by the warrior police, if I'm unlucky) to own certain chemicals, or certain tools of self-defense, or even certain information, or engage in certain voluntary transactions without prior state approval. You may say it's for my own and for society's benefit to restrict my rights, and everybody comes out ahead with it. But that's exactly what the other guys say too - everybody would be ahead and society would benefit greatly if only gay marriage were not allowed. You say holding such views is despicable and non-acceptable to the point that if you use browser which is made by a company whose executive holds such views you are tainted by it. Then I ask why you're not tainted by having people supporting even harsher infringements of liberties? Should we boycott everything that has relationship to people ever supporting gun control, war on drugs, rent control, zero tolerance policies, blasphemy bans, speech codes, etc.? Should we ban people known to have socialist sympathies (and this comes as close to actual slavery as it can get - socialist governments actually implemented forced labor many times and routinely strip people of their rights) from participating in our communities, for example? How far should we go with this?
• Houshalter 13y ago
  A lot of people believe that about every issue and on both sides. And we aren't talking about some small minority of bigots, it's the majority of the population. You can't just say it's not an issue in 2014 because it very much still is.