4 ms·

This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay marr

by danudey 13y ago

This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay married? The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it. I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
- protomyth 13y ago
  I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
  - bashinator 13y ago
    The thing about the wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs, is that the United States has already been there on a wide scale. Go back fifty or sixty years, and you'll find vast numbers of businesses that refused to serve non-whites, often for sincerely held religious reasons.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      I have no dispute on restaurant, motel, hospital, and other public establishments, but wedding photographer and cake designer are artists. What about goldsmiths, painters of portraits, and software developers? Can you be compelled to work? What about priests then? This is the slope that fuels the money.
      - Crito 13y ago
        You cannot be compelled to work. Hell, you can't even compel a restaurant owner to serve black people. There is legal recourse when a restaurant owner refuses to serve black people, but forced labor is not on the list of possible outcomes.
        protomyth 13y ago
        Once again, I know the history of restaurants and public establishments you down voters[1]. You are wrong about a restaurant since they can be compelled (as it should be since they are a public establishment and licensing takes care of that). We already have a case of forced labor in a photographer which is why the churches are worried about being compelled to perform by the state. 1) don't ever think that it didn't happen to others
        Crito 13y ago
        No, they cannot actually be compelled to work. They can be offered the choice, "Do it, or suffer the legal ramifications.", but if they choose "suffer the legal ramifications" standard legal ramifications are the extent of what happens. You can't actually legally force them to do the work, they can choose to not do the work and accept the consequences instead.
briantakita 13y ago
Trust in cultural intelligence. The population of people who's only argument is their beliefs will dwindle. It's only a matter of time. In the mean time, treat them with respect, just as you want to be treated with respect.
ljoshua 13y ago
Let me try and suggest an explanation. In a democracy, you work to make your opinion heard and effective. If you have the opinion, whether based on religious or other grounds, that homosexuality may damage the overall morality of a society, then you would work to protect that society from what you would view as a potential issue. You would also support laws that would be a means to that end--the goal not being to put somebody else down but to uphold it. Therefore a person that holds such beliefs would support enacting a law that prevents something, even if it didn't constrain them in any way.
gyardley 13y ago
I've heard people say something like "it's far too soon to tell what impact if any this rather dramatic change to the traditional definition of marriage will have on society, so perhaps we should take things slow and not rush to implement it everywhere simultaneously." This seems like a reasonable enough position to me -- although I don't share it because I think the injustice to the individuals affected outweighs any potential drawbacks I can come up with, sometimes the law of unexpected consequences surprises us in interesting ways. I've also heard people say "judge-made law causes resentment and entrenchment in a minority of the populace and leads to long-term conflicts (see, for instance, Roe vs. Wade). Therefore, while it'd be nice to have gay marriage everywhere simultaneously, we should wait to introduce it in a jurisdiction until we have an electoral majority there." Again, this seems like a reasonable enough position to me, although not one I personally share. Brendan Eich would be just fine as CEO in a more civil society where people are capable of separating personal opinions and professional actions. My personal dislike of his 'resignation' comes from a desire to have that (sadly imaginary) society instead of the one we've got. If I can work peaceably with a bunch of left-wing people, y'all should be able to work just fine with Brendan.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  This seems like a reasonable enough position to me -- although I don't share it You have just blown thousands of collective minds. Such a stance is possible?
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    Being able to understand how someone arrives at a view while not also holding that view is an important part of being empathetic.

by danudey 13y ago

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.

protomyth 13y ago
I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
- bashinator 13y ago
  The thing about the wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs, is that the United States has already been there on a wide scale. Go back fifty or sixty years, and you'll find vast numbers of businesses that refused to serve non-whites, often for sincerely held religious reasons.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    I have no dispute on restaurant, motel, hospital, and other public establishments, but wedding photographer and cake designer are artists. What about goldsmiths, painters of portraits, and software developers? Can you be compelled to work? What about priests then? This is the slope that fuels the money.
    - Crito 13y ago
      You cannot be compelled to work. Hell, you can't even compel a restaurant owner to serve black people. There is legal recourse when a restaurant owner refuses to serve black people, but forced labor is not on the list of possible outcomes.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Once again, I know the history of restaurants and public establishments you down voters[1]. You are wrong about a restaurant since they can be compelled (as it should be since they are a public establishment and licensing takes care of that). We already have a case of forced labor in a photographer which is why the churches are worried about being compelled to perform by the state. 1) don't ever think that it didn't happen to others
        Crito 13y ago
        No, they cannot actually be compelled to work. They can be offered the choice, "Do it, or suffer the legal ramifications.", but if they choose "suffer the legal ramifications" standard legal ramifications are the extent of what happens. You can't actually legally force them to do the work, they can choose to not do the work and accept the consequences instead.

briantakita 13y ago

Trust in cultural intelligence. The population of people who's only argument is their beliefs will dwindle. It's only a matter of time. In the mean time, treat them with respect, just as you want to be treated with respect.

ljoshua 13y ago

Let me try and suggest an explanation. In a democracy, you work to make your opinion heard and effective. If you have the opinion, whether based on religious or other grounds, that homosexuality may damage the overall morality of a society, then you would work to protect that society from what you would view as a potential issue. You would also support laws that would be a means to that end--the goal not being to put somebody else down but to uphold it. Therefore a person that holds such beliefs would support enacting a law that prevents something, even if it didn't constrain them in any way.

gyardley 13y ago

I've heard people say something like "it's far too soon to tell what impact if any this rather dramatic change to the traditional definition of marriage will have on society, so perhaps we should take things slow and not rush to implement it everywhere simultaneously." This seems like a reasonable enough position to me -- although I don't share it because I think the injustice to the individuals affected outweighs any potential drawbacks I can come up with, sometimes the law of unexpected consequences surprises us in interesting ways. I've also heard people say "judge-made law causes resentment and entrenchment in a minority of the populace and leads to long-term conflicts (see, for instance, Roe vs. Wade). Therefore, while it'd be nice to have gay marriage everywhere simultaneously, we should wait to introduce it in a jurisdiction until we have an electoral majority there." Again, this seems like a reasonable enough position to me, although not one I personally share. Brendan Eich would be just fine as CEO in a more civil society where people are capable of separating personal opinions and professional actions. My personal dislike of his 'resignation' comes from a desire to have that (sadly imaginary) society instead of the one we've got. If I can work peaceably with a bunch of left-wing people, y'all should be able to work just fine with Brendan.

sliverstorm 13y ago
This seems like a reasonable enough position to me -- although I don't share it You have just blown thousands of collective minds. Such a stance is possible?
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  Being able to understand how someone arrives at a view while not also holding that view is an important part of being empathetic.