9 ms·

Support for Prop 8 has a huge age gradient, as does anti-homosexuality in general. Support for Prop 8 falls by about 0.75% per year Ages 18-24 voted overwhelm

Support for Prop 8 has a huge age gradient, as does anti-homosexuality in general. Support for Prop 8 falls by about 0.75% per year Ages 18-24 voted overwhelmingly against it. 65+ voted overwhelmingly for it. Old people hate gays. Young people don't. Support for Prop 8 among young people in the SF Bay Area is negligible. These are the people Eich was supposed to lead as CEO of Mozilla. You can't lead people who think you are a reprehensible bigot.

acjohnson55 13y ago
You're assuming the people he briefly led and who worked with Eich for years thought of him this way. I'm hugely anti Prop 8, but "reprehensible bigot" is not a coat of paint I would use on all of its supporters.
gfodor 13y ago
People have not been spending their time arguing about the pragmatic negative effects of choosing Eich due to the perception of young people that he is a bigot (regardless of facts.) They have spent their time talking about how terrible Eich actually is, how terrible Mozilla actually is, etc, etc.
sp332 13y ago
Old people only know gay people as Elton John and Freddie Mercury. Younger people know normal people as gay, so it's no wonder.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Do young people really believe this?
  - sp332 13y ago
    Well, I do, because I was told by older people and it makes sense. Why?
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      Because (in the US at least), gay people started more openly coming out in the 1970s, with large increases in the 80s as well. So that's 30-40 years of gays becoming increasingly open. Not to mention before that, there were people, even in the small town south, that everyone knew was gay but just didn't discuss in open terms. Now it's true the cultural stereotype for "gay" was the Village People or Liberace or whatever, but a large number of people knew ordinary gay people as well. Of course, even today, and even in a place as open as San Francisco, I suspect most everyone knows more gay people than they think they do. I know that's true, in fact. A lot of people just never talk about it.
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    Yes. You should have seen my mother when she figured out that Liberace was gay. As if Liberace wasn't the gayest person ever.
    - sitkack 13y ago
      I knew Liberace was gay before I knew what gay was. Just like google could spot cats in videos.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      Liberace appears to have had a homosexual relationship, but he himself denied it. "Gay" to me implies a person who openly embraces a lifestyle including exclusively homosexual sex; under such a definition he was not gay. Indeed he won a libel case against a newspaper and stated he wasn't homosexual and had never taken part in homosexual acts. His supposed live-in lover also failed to show he was homosexual. There's evidence to suggest he was [also] interested in women. Wikipedia doesn't mention it but a BBC article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22099082 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22099082, says he was engaged. Of course that could have been a way to court interest from [female] fans; but it seems equally others could have lied about the extent of his homosexuality. Often people mistake flamboyant-camp for homosexual, it's possible to have either without the other. The whole Wikipedia page for Liberace appears to be an attempt to force him in to a mold that he refused repeatedly. Perhaps he was asexual as some reports hint, or maybe bi-.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  Freddie Mercury was bisexual, at least according to Brian May's account of Mercury having sexual relations with many women. Elton John too was married and in interview said he was bisexual, but yes more recently has stated his behaviour is homosexual. I wonder why people find it so important to note a person had/have homosexual sex but not mention they had/have heterosexual sex.
cookiecaper 13y ago
The problem is that support for Prop 8 has been misrepresented as "hate" of gays, and that gullible young people have been tricked to support the gay agenda in the first place, and also to believe anyone who disagrees with that agenda is a "reprehensible bigot". If "gay rights" are really so self-evident, let's confront the haters and explain in a clear, concise manner why their beliefs are invalid. The thing is that reasonable people disagree, and shouldn't be shamed for that disagreement. Pro-gay activists have gotten all progress by bullying opponents and teaching people that anyone who dares to question them is automatically a "reprehensible bigot", and foolish children have been flattered into accepting this patently ridiculous line of thought.
- bane 13y ago
  > let's confront the haters and explain in a clear, concise manner why their beliefs are invalid. It's actually pretty easy. Any number of court opinions on the issue are readily available and generally easy to read. These represent the best-of arguments from both sides. Once the issue was raised as a legal issue, it became subject to constitutional scrutiny and the U.S. Constitution simply doesn't allow for that kind of discrimination and the kinds of argument used in support of.
  - shasta 13y ago
    > Once the issue was raised as a legal issue, it became subject to constitutional scrutiny and the U.S. Constitution simply doesn't allow for that kind of discrimination and the kinds of argument used in support of. This is actually completely backwards. It only became tenable to approach as a legal issue after gay marriage had become culturally acceptable.
    - bane 13y ago
      Yeah, courts are subject to popular opinion in a way. I suspect many gay couples wanted to get married, but were denied in lower courts and appeals denied after. It's finally reached the popular critical mass to make it to the Federal level and that's why it's suddenly an issue. But more importantly, when you actually read the arguments put forward in the cases, it takes the courts a very big legal stretch to side with the non-gay-marriage arguments, as they're almost uniformly non-legal and unconstitutional religious and traditionalist arguments.

acjohnson55 13y ago

You're assuming the people he briefly led and who worked with Eich for years thought of him this way. I'm hugely anti Prop 8, but "reprehensible bigot" is not a coat of paint I would use on all of its supporters.

gfodor 13y ago

People have not been spending their time arguing about the pragmatic negative effects of choosing Eich due to the perception of young people that he is a bigot (regardless of facts.) They have spent their time talking about how terrible Eich actually is, how terrible Mozilla actually is, etc, etc.

sp332 13y ago

Old people only know gay people as Elton John and Freddie Mercury. Younger people know normal people as gay, so it's no wonder.

waterlesscloud 13y ago
Do young people really believe this?
- sp332 13y ago
  Well, I do, because I was told by older people and it makes sense. Why?
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    Because (in the US at least), gay people started more openly coming out in the 1970s, with large increases in the 80s as well. So that's 30-40 years of gays becoming increasingly open. Not to mention before that, there were people, even in the small town south, that everyone knew was gay but just didn't discuss in open terms. Now it's true the cultural stereotype for "gay" was the Village People or Liberace or whatever, but a large number of people knew ordinary gay people as well. Of course, even today, and even in a place as open as San Francisco, I suspect most everyone knows more gay people than they think they do. I know that's true, in fact. A lot of people just never talk about it.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  Yes. You should have seen my mother when she figured out that Liberace was gay. As if Liberace wasn't the gayest person ever.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    I knew Liberace was gay before I knew what gay was. Just like google could spot cats in videos.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    Liberace appears to have had a homosexual relationship, but he himself denied it. "Gay" to me implies a person who openly embraces a lifestyle including exclusively homosexual sex; under such a definition he was not gay. Indeed he won a libel case against a newspaper and stated he wasn't homosexual and had never taken part in homosexual acts. His supposed live-in lover also failed to show he was homosexual. There's evidence to suggest he was [also] interested in women. Wikipedia doesn't mention it but a BBC article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22099082 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22099082, says he was engaged. Of course that could have been a way to court interest from [female] fans; but it seems equally others could have lied about the extent of his homosexuality. Often people mistake flamboyant-camp for homosexual, it's possible to have either without the other. The whole Wikipedia page for Liberace appears to be an attempt to force him in to a mold that he refused repeatedly. Perhaps he was asexual as some reports hint, or maybe bi-.
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Freddie Mercury was bisexual, at least according to Brian May's account of Mercury having sexual relations with many women. Elton John too was married and in interview said he was bisexual, but yes more recently has stated his behaviour is homosexual. I wonder why people find it so important to note a person had/have homosexual sex but not mention they had/have heterosexual sex.

cookiecaper 13y ago

The problem is that support for Prop 8 has been misrepresented as "hate" of gays, and that gullible young people have been tricked to support the gay agenda in the first place, and also to believe anyone who disagrees with that agenda is a "reprehensible bigot". If "gay rights" are really so self-evident, let's confront the haters and explain in a clear, concise manner why their beliefs are invalid. The thing is that reasonable people disagree, and shouldn't be shamed for that disagreement. Pro-gay activists have gotten all progress by bullying opponents and teaching people that anyone who dares to question them is automatically a "reprehensible bigot", and foolish children have been flattered into accepting this patently ridiculous line of thought.

bane 13y ago
> let's confront the haters and explain in a clear, concise manner why their beliefs are invalid. It's actually pretty easy. Any number of court opinions on the issue are readily available and generally easy to read. These represent the best-of arguments from both sides. Once the issue was raised as a legal issue, it became subject to constitutional scrutiny and the U.S. Constitution simply doesn't allow for that kind of discrimination and the kinds of argument used in support of.
- shasta 13y ago
  > Once the issue was raised as a legal issue, it became subject to constitutional scrutiny and the U.S. Constitution simply doesn't allow for that kind of discrimination and the kinds of argument used in support of. This is actually completely backwards. It only became tenable to approach as a legal issue after gay marriage had become culturally acceptable.
  - bane 13y ago
    Yeah, courts are subject to popular opinion in a way. I suspect many gay couples wanted to get married, but were denied in lower courts and appeals denied after. It's finally reached the popular critical mass to make it to the Federal level and that's why it's suddenly an issue. But more importantly, when you actually read the arguments put forward in the cases, it takes the courts a very big legal stretch to side with the non-gay-marriage arguments, as they're almost uniformly non-legal and unconstitutional religious and traditionalist arguments.