> That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley. Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a California initiative. But it is still less o

> That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley. Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a California initiative. But it is still less offensive than the racist white-mans-burden approach Google is taking with this issue globally, assuming he resided in California (if, OTOH, he resided in Washington State or anywhere else, it would be similarly bad). I would also totally take issue with the idea that homophobia is the norm and this is why SSM is not recognized in most countries. The fact is that marriage, reproduction, sexuality, and retirement are tied together differently in most countries than they are in the US today, and consequently I don't think that modern American definitions of homophobia are very relevant in most of the world. To hold the idea that everyone should strive to have kids they can retire with to be homophobic stretches the definition beyond the breaking point, but that's the basis in almost all of the world. As social security declines as a retirement option, maybe it will come back in the US, but it isn't where we are now. Similarly in much of the world, abortion is not seen as a human right for similar reasons. Where sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and retirement are closely bound, many of these issues are very, very different, and this is why treating divisive issues as human rights is very, very wrong.