5 ms·

It's a little like this being 1969 and Eich, having grown up in the Deep South, admits giving donations to a Proposition to stop interracial marriage. You could

It's a little like this being 1969 and Eich, having grown up in the Deep South, admits giving donations to a Proposition to stop interracial marriage. You could rationalize it by saying it's happening at a time of very rapidly changing social views on what's normal and that he's from the South and that he's not against blacks per se. He just doesn't think it's a good idea they breed with whites. But it's still wrong. I have no sympathy for Eich as he's a fully grown adult who works in one of the more open minded industries in one of the most liberal parts of the US and he actively wants to lead people. A great leader has to be tolerant of a wide range of social and cultural POV. He demonstrated he's not very tolerant. Bad sign.

jiojk542 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance Sexual orientation does not equal race. Scientists have never isolated a gay gene. There are no definitive causes of homosexuality. His opinion of homosexuality as a choice is as scientifically valid as your belief that it's innate. Why is he wrong and you right?
- ottonomy 13y ago
  Worried enough about posting this that you'd create a new account so that people don't see this connected to whatever your long-term identity is?
  - tgdfhgfh 13y ago
    Don't you see? If anyone decides to say an unpopular opinion that offends the left, their lives and careers would probably be ruined. Doesn't that stifle conversation? How is that a good thing?
- bemaniac 13y ago
  If sexual orientation is a choice, then why aren't there throngs of "straight" male scientists choosing to be gay for a while, fucking a bunch of dudes, enjoying it (that's the key part), then writing papers on it?
  - LordKano 13y ago
    It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. Can Eich claim that he didn't have a choice about his political activity?
LordKano 13y ago
If that part of the country was really as liberal as you seem to think, Prop 8 wouldn't have been passed by a majority of voters.
- 3am 13y ago
  It could be 99% of the voters that supported it. It's still objectively morally wrong, just like Jim Crow laws were. @jiojk542: it's morally wrong because it denies equal treatment under the law (tax benefits, government benefit benefits, survivor benefits absent a will, etc) to law abiding people. You are the one creating a false equivalency. People that would like to deny same-sex marriage are free to not marry someone of the same sex. Their freedom is not being curtailed. The same is not true the other way around. That wikipedia link is patronizing, unimpressive, and unconvincing. edit: the only "impingement" on the freedom on the anti same-sex marriage side is they must tolerate the presence of people the do not approve of. Such is the burden of a democratic, pluralistic society. @LordKano - I literally do not understand your point. This is about the civil recognition of a personal relationship. A justice of the peace "marriage" has no religious meaning, nor does a marriage ceremony performed in a church have any civil component absent a marriage license. There are religions that allow same-sex marriage ceremonies. Are they "immoral" religions? Is it a violation of the 1rst amendment (vs the 14th) to not permit the civil recognition of those religious rituals? My point is denying an individual's right (not a privilege) on this is de facto immoral, regardless of your feelings about that individuals choice, if it does not cause demonstrable and direct harm to others. @NeonVice - A marriage is a religion thing. A civil union is a government thing, which is currently and inconveniently also call "marriage". Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and atheist heterosexual couples can have government marriages even though they may have nothing in common with Christian marriages ideals. Nobody is forcing any church/synagogue/mosque/etc to perform a marriage ceremony of any kind they do not want to. With those 3 replies, I will waste no more words on this damn topic.
  - jiojk542 13y ago
    Again... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance And why is it "objectively" morally wrong? Who gets to decide this? There is no scientific consensus on the causes of homosexuality.
mrt0mat0 13y ago
"A great leader has to be tolerant of a wide range of social and cultural POV." First of all, it was made very clear in all the articles on him that he has never shown any mistreatment of anyone because of their sexual preference. It seems that his intolerance isn't in question. If you want to put that quote on anyone, I'd aim it at the leaders of OKCupid. The hypocrisy is so stupid.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  I'm not sure what to tell you if your starting position is his this is not about his tolerance.

jiojk542 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance Sexual orientation does not equal race. Scientists have never isolated a gay gene. There are no definitive causes of homosexuality. His opinion of homosexuality as a choice is as scientifically valid as your belief that it's innate. Why is he wrong and you right?

ottonomy 13y ago
Worried enough about posting this that you'd create a new account so that people don't see this connected to whatever your long-term identity is?
- tgdfhgfh 13y ago
  Don't you see? If anyone decides to say an unpopular opinion that offends the left, their lives and careers would probably be ruined. Doesn't that stifle conversation? How is that a good thing?
bemaniac 13y ago
If sexual orientation is a choice, then why aren't there throngs of "straight" male scientists choosing to be gay for a while, fucking a bunch of dudes, enjoying it (that's the key part), then writing papers on it?
- LordKano 13y ago
  It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. Can Eich claim that he didn't have a choice about his political activity?

LordKano 13y ago

If that part of the country was really as liberal as you seem to think, Prop 8 wouldn't have been passed by a majority of voters.

3am 13y ago
It could be 99% of the voters that supported it. It's still objectively morally wrong, just like Jim Crow laws were. @jiojk542: it's morally wrong because it denies equal treatment under the law (tax benefits, government benefit benefits, survivor benefits absent a will, etc) to law abiding people. You are the one creating a false equivalency. People that would like to deny same-sex marriage are free to not marry someone of the same sex. Their freedom is not being curtailed. The same is not true the other way around. That wikipedia link is patronizing, unimpressive, and unconvincing. edit: the only "impingement" on the freedom on the anti same-sex marriage side is they must tolerate the presence of people the do not approve of. Such is the burden of a democratic, pluralistic society. @LordKano - I literally do not understand your point. This is about the civil recognition of a personal relationship. A justice of the peace "marriage" has no religious meaning, nor does a marriage ceremony performed in a church have any civil component absent a marriage license. There are religions that allow same-sex marriage ceremonies. Are they "immoral" religions? Is it a violation of the 1rst amendment (vs the 14th) to not permit the civil recognition of those religious rituals? My point is denying an individual's right (not a privilege) on this is de facto immoral, regardless of your feelings about that individuals choice, if it does not cause demonstrable and direct harm to others. @NeonVice - A marriage is a religion thing. A civil union is a government thing, which is currently and inconveniently also call "marriage". Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and atheist heterosexual couples can have government marriages even though they may have nothing in common with Christian marriages ideals. Nobody is forcing any church/synagogue/mosque/etc to perform a marriage ceremony of any kind they do not want to. With those 3 replies, I will waste no more words on this damn topic.
- jiojk542 13y ago
  Again... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance And why is it "objectively" morally wrong? Who gets to decide this? There is no scientific consensus on the causes of homosexuality.

mrt0mat0 13y ago

"A great leader has to be tolerant of a wide range of social and cultural POV." First of all, it was made very clear in all the articles on him that he has never shown any mistreatment of anyone because of their sexual preference. It seems that his intolerance isn't in question. If you want to put that quote on anyone, I'd aim it at the leaders of OKCupid. The hypocrisy is so stupid.

jusben1369 13y ago
I'm not sure what to tell you if your starting position is his this is not about his tolerance.