10 ms·

> There are two sides to this story, and you seem to be very eager to tell the one and handwave the other for a "why can't we all just get along" platitude. We

> There are two sides to this story, and you seem to be very eager to tell the one and handwave the other for a "why can't we all just get along" platitude. We should treat people with respect. Not create a sensationalist backlash. Not punish people for having their opinions & being politically active on a gray area. Most of all, a rational discourse should take place. Not these sensationalist headlines that are designed to manipulate people's unnuanced emotions.

Karunamon 13y ago
I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law. If you want to make the purely numeric argument, Eich's behavior impacted a hell of a lot more people than the backlash did.
- dubfan 13y ago
  > I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law. I keep seeing this line from gay marriage supporters. I always have to ask, what exactly is the pro-gay-marriage movement about then? It sounds to me like it's exactly what you're describing here. Disclaimer: I support same-sex marriage.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat. Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.
    - dubfan 13y ago
      See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry". It's a very strong label that kills any meaningful dialogue. There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        >Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony This is patently false. Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony. There is a massive problem with your view. You think a religious belief holds any legal sway. It does not. Laws based on religious overtones are absolutely forbidden by the supreme law of the land. This might be different in other countries, but here? No law concerning an establishment of religion. In other words, whether or not a law conflicts with any given religious belief is utterly irrelevant to that law. It should not at any point enter the discussion. >There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable. Yada yada being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance.
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
        >Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony. Neither does government, so why does it matter what government calls it?
        Karunamon 13y ago
        Because the government definition is tied to various contracts and benefits.
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
        But those contracts and benefits can be had without the word. Was Prop 8 attempting to permanently remove the ability to gain those benefits?
        Karunamon 13y ago
        Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now. California had a few options here. * Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contracts that recognize a marriage (out of state insurance comes to mind)? Etc? Those would all be invalid. You've also ensured that any union in California (ANYONE's, not just LGBT's) would be invalid in any other state because they're legally not marriages anymore. I say this solution introduces what would be known in the packaging world as dependency hell. Too many other things rely on the first thing to exist in its current state. You've introduced a change that is going to break a lot of things without dealing with them first. Bad idea all around. * Amend the legal definition of marriage to include any two people. Simplest thing that could possibly work, ensures that marriages performed in the state will be recognized elsewhere and for other purposes. No dependency issues. Annoys the religious folks a bit, but religious views have no say in law anyways!
    - baddox 13y ago
      There's a fundamental difference between supporting the government's authority in the realm of marriage, and supporting the government's authority to ban homosexuality itself. One can, for example, easily oppose laws which ban homosexual cohabitation, while also opposing government having any role in marriage.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  And yet elsewhere in this thread you're saying a man who literally made laws negatively affecting gays should be able to keep his job because hey, the economy. There's some serious cognitive dissonance here.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    If you'd stop willfully misinterpreting my posts, you'd know that was not what I was saying at all. The whole point there was that certain things are more important than other things at certain times. And I did say five years ago, which you conveniently omitted from your little summary here. I am not a single issue voter.
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      But you're single issue on Eich. Who wasn't actually making laws against same sex marriage, but instead made open source software that improved the world.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        Eich isn't an elected official.
        baddox 13y ago
        So you're single issue when it comes to private citizens, but multiple issue when it comes to elected officials?
- briantakita 13y ago
  > Eich's behavior impacted a hell of a lot more people than the backlash did The backlash affects everybody. It creates a hostile environment where your opinion can cost you your job. That coupled with ever growing levels of transparency means everybody needs to have a politically correct opinion or face consequences. The ends do not justify the means. Also, what does firing Eich achieve for the gay rights movement? Nothing. This is revenge politics. This is the dark side. As Ghandi said: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind".
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >It creates a hostile environment where your opinion can cost you your job. It would probably already cost you your job to publicly declare (let alone financially support) similar non-equality views of both blacks and women. Why is this so much worse? Oh no, one more particular flavor of bigotry becomes socially unacceptable. However will I cope. </sarcasm> >Also, what does firing Eich achieve for the gay rights movement? An object lession that being bigoted against LGBTs is just as unacceptable and repugnant as being bigoted against blacks or women. Regardless of your position in life. A double standard that I, for one, am glad we are reversing.
    - briantakita 13y ago
      Eich said he supported equality. He supported taking care of domestic partners. If you have issue with his "support" then have a respectful dialog. If he is wrong, then that will become obvious. Instead, the movement acted like a bully & does not have the moral high ground anymore. You are conflating the state not recognizing gay marriage with a human rights issue. Not everyone agrees. Besides, the notion of marriage enforces the status quo of monogamy. I think Polyamory should also be recognized with equal benefits. Or better yet, all people should receive the benefits of a married person. While I agree that there are equality issues with banning gay marriage, I don't think it's a human rights issue. For example, I'm single. Is it a human rights issue that I don't receive the tax benefits of being married? It's unfair, but I wouldn't say my human rights are being violated. Support for Prop 8 doesn't necessarily mean that person is a bigot. This labeling is irrational & meant to stir up hatred. There are different reasons to support Prop 8. It's a cultural battle. However, ostracizing is a type of bullying. That behavior is wrong & needs to be called out. I hope we can be respectful toward each other. It was not that long ago where gay rights activists were in the minority and treated with disrespect. We have an opportunity to have a more tolerant society. Let's not miss this opportunity.
- bluntly_said 13y ago
  The other side of this coin is that marriage has religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. Both sides fucked it up. The only proper response should have been to remove all legal rights associated with marriage, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. The establishment clause to the constitution says that religious beliefs do not get to be encoded in law. And considering I have not seen one single anti-equality argument that wasn't either religiously motivated or a gigantic mass of "appeal to tradition" fallacies, I suggest the "anti" side move to a different country where theocracy is an accepted form or government. Because this isn't one. > The only proper response should have been to remove all legal rights associated with marriage, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. I'd be okay with this, but it's not a change that happens overnight. There are too many things.. insurance benefits, tax benefits, inheritances, visitation rights, etc. associated with the spousal relationship. Those will take some time to work through. In the mean time, this is a suitable band-aid.
    - bluntly_said 13y ago
      There already was a suitable band-aid, it was called domestic partnerships, and had the full legal rights of marriage in California. Co-opting the word marriage in law, rather than asking for it to be removed was actively choosing to force religions to accept your personal beliefs. That's bullying. -- That said, I generally fall much closer on the scale to you than to the supporters of prop 8, but you have to be able to recognize and draw a line as to where your rights end. Attacking a personal donation made as part of a democratic process is not something I can condone. Particularly when the end result cost a man his job.
- baddox 13y ago
  > I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law. I fully believe that claim, but that's because I'm a crazy anarchist. If you're not a crazy anarchist, then you probably don't fully believe that claim.
bane 13y ago
Treating people with respect also means holding their opinions up to a respectable standard. There are some opinions that are disrespectable that otherwise good people harbor. Because you respect them, those opinions are even less tolerable.

Karunamon 13y ago

I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law. If you want to make the purely numeric argument, Eich's behavior impacted a hell of a lot more people than the backlash did.

dubfan 13y ago
> I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law. I keep seeing this line from gay marriage supporters. I always have to ask, what exactly is the pro-gay-marriage movement about then? It sounds to me like it's exactly what you're describing here. Disclaimer: I support same-sex marriage.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat. Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.
  - dubfan 13y ago
    See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry". It's a very strong label that kills any meaningful dialogue. There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      >Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony This is patently false. Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony. There is a massive problem with your view. You think a religious belief holds any legal sway. It does not. Laws based on religious overtones are absolutely forbidden by the supreme law of the land. This might be different in other countries, but here? No law concerning an establishment of religion. In other words, whether or not a law conflicts with any given religious belief is utterly irrelevant to that law. It should not at any point enter the discussion. >There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable. Yada yada being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        >Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony. Neither does government, so why does it matter what government calls it?
        Karunamon 13y ago
        Because the government definition is tied to various contracts and benefits.
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
        But those contracts and benefits can be had without the word. Was Prop 8 attempting to permanently remove the ability to gain those benefits?
        Karunamon 13y ago
        Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now. California had a few options here. * Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contracts that recognize a marriage (out of state insurance comes to mind)? Etc? Those would all be invalid. You've also ensured that any union in California (ANYONE's, not just LGBT's) would be invalid in any other state because they're legally not marriages anymore. I say this solution introduces what would be known in the packaging world as dependency hell. Too many other things rely on the first thing to exist in its current state. You've introduced a change that is going to break a lot of things without dealing with them first. Bad idea all around. * Amend the legal definition of marriage to include any two people. Simplest thing that could possibly work, ensures that marriages performed in the state will be recognized elsewhere and for other purposes. No dependency issues. Annoys the religious folks a bit, but religious views have no say in law anyways!
  - baddox 13y ago
    There's a fundamental difference between supporting the government's authority in the realm of marriage, and supporting the government's authority to ban homosexuality itself. One can, for example, easily oppose laws which ban homosexual cohabitation, while also opposing government having any role in marriage.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
And yet elsewhere in this thread you're saying a man who literally made laws negatively affecting gays should be able to keep his job because hey, the economy. There's some serious cognitive dissonance here.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  If you'd stop willfully misinterpreting my posts, you'd know that was not what I was saying at all. The whole point there was that certain things are more important than other things at certain times. And I did say five years ago, which you conveniently omitted from your little summary here. I am not a single issue voter.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    But you're single issue on Eich. Who wasn't actually making laws against same sex marriage, but instead made open source software that improved the world.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      Eich isn't an elected official.
      - baddox 13y ago
        So you're single issue when it comes to private citizens, but multiple issue when it comes to elected officials?
briantakita 13y ago
> Eich's behavior impacted a hell of a lot more people than the backlash did The backlash affects everybody. It creates a hostile environment where your opinion can cost you your job. That coupled with ever growing levels of transparency means everybody needs to have a politically correct opinion or face consequences. The ends do not justify the means. Also, what does firing Eich achieve for the gay rights movement? Nothing. This is revenge politics. This is the dark side. As Ghandi said: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind".
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >It creates a hostile environment where your opinion can cost you your job. It would probably already cost you your job to publicly declare (let alone financially support) similar non-equality views of both blacks and women. Why is this so much worse? Oh no, one more particular flavor of bigotry becomes socially unacceptable. However will I cope. </sarcasm> >Also, what does firing Eich achieve for the gay rights movement? An object lession that being bigoted against LGBTs is just as unacceptable and repugnant as being bigoted against blacks or women. Regardless of your position in life. A double standard that I, for one, am glad we are reversing.
  - briantakita 13y ago
    Eich said he supported equality. He supported taking care of domestic partners. If you have issue with his "support" then have a respectful dialog. If he is wrong, then that will become obvious. Instead, the movement acted like a bully & does not have the moral high ground anymore. You are conflating the state not recognizing gay marriage with a human rights issue. Not everyone agrees. Besides, the notion of marriage enforces the status quo of monogamy. I think Polyamory should also be recognized with equal benefits. Or better yet, all people should receive the benefits of a married person. While I agree that there are equality issues with banning gay marriage, I don't think it's a human rights issue. For example, I'm single. Is it a human rights issue that I don't receive the tax benefits of being married? It's unfair, but I wouldn't say my human rights are being violated. Support for Prop 8 doesn't necessarily mean that person is a bigot. This labeling is irrational & meant to stir up hatred. There are different reasons to support Prop 8. It's a cultural battle. However, ostracizing is a type of bullying. That behavior is wrong & needs to be called out. I hope we can be respectful toward each other. It was not that long ago where gay rights activists were in the minority and treated with disrespect. We have an opportunity to have a more tolerant society. Let's not miss this opportunity.
bluntly_said 13y ago
The other side of this coin is that marriage has religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. Both sides fucked it up. The only proper response should have been to remove all legal rights associated with marriage, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. Churches are welcome to marry people all they desire (on both sides, gay or straight as they please according to their beliefs)
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >religious significance to many people, and by forcing the definition to change, pro-gay rights groups are also codifying personal belief into law. The establishment clause to the constitution says that religious beliefs do not get to be encoded in law. And considering I have not seen one single anti-equality argument that wasn't either religiously motivated or a gigantic mass of "appeal to tradition" fallacies, I suggest the "anti" side move to a different country where theocracy is an accepted form or government. Because this isn't one. > The only proper response should have been to remove all legal rights associated with marriage, and force all couples to get a civil union. Tax that instead. I'd be okay with this, but it's not a change that happens overnight. There are too many things.. insurance benefits, tax benefits, inheritances, visitation rights, etc. associated with the spousal relationship. Those will take some time to work through. In the mean time, this is a suitable band-aid.
  - bluntly_said 13y ago
    There already was a suitable band-aid, it was called domestic partnerships, and had the full legal rights of marriage in California. Co-opting the word marriage in law, rather than asking for it to be removed was actively choosing to force religions to accept your personal beliefs. That's bullying. -- That said, I generally fall much closer on the scale to you than to the supporters of prop 8, but you have to be able to recognize and draw a line as to where your rights end. Attacking a personal donation made as part of a democratic process is not something I can condone. Particularly when the end result cost a man his job.
baddox 13y ago
> I'd say a fundamental portion of respect is not encoding your personal beliefs of other people's personal lives into law. I fully believe that claim, but that's because I'm a crazy anarchist. If you're not a crazy anarchist, then you probably don't fully believe that claim.

bane 13y ago

Treating people with respect also means holding their opinions up to a respectable standard. There are some opinions that are disrespectable that otherwise good people harbor. Because you respect them, those opinions are even less tolerable.