35 ms·

I'm talking about someone religious that may not agree with gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, but treats everyone equally (gay, straight, or tran

I'm talking about someone religious that may not agree with gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, but treats everyone equally (gay, straight, or trans). They are bullied and tormented by other people in the community and on social media, and it's accepted If it wasn't accepted, the people doing the bullying would lose their jobs. But I have never seen it happen. I have seen people lose their jobs for disagreeing with the gay marriage ruling...and I'm not even talking about using pejoratives or using any sort of the same bullying tactics. I would like a world with true equality. Not just equality for the few. This sort of behavior is not progressive. It's regressive. It's a digital version of mob mentality and is the very reason we have a democratic process with a court system and a judge/jury. Emotion clouds judgement, intelligence, and facts. The politicians know this and use it to their full advantage to get you to vote for them and create an us vs. them mentality. Until we change this behavior, there will never be peace.

lmm 11y ago
> I'm talking about someone religious that may not agree with gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, but treats everyone equally (gay, straight, or trans). Your "not agree with" is hiding a lot. If someone is trying to make it illegal for one group to marry (and legal for another group) then how is that treating everyone equally?
- rmxt 11y ago
  It's not treating everyone equally, which is why it is cognitive dissonance on full display. All of the religious arguments against gay marriage are fine and dandy for marriage within, and as defined by, that religion, but once they are extended to civil matters their arguments fall to pieces. The GP is arguing for this split/dual nature of "equality." To paraphrase: "I want to be free to criticize and make illegal the lifestyle choices of others, but I myself want to be free from repercussion and public criticism." Good thing saner minds have prevailed on the particular topic of gay marriage in the US. Also, I would love to see any hard evidence there is, that someone making lucid and noninflammatory arguments against legalizing civil gay marriages was actually fired from any job.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Brendan Eich. He didn't even have to open his mouth.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      Since these arguments are inherently over nits, a couple of points: - He didn't have to open his mouth, since he had already opened his wallet. Money is a language of its own nature. - Importantly, he wasn't fired because of what he did. He stepped down of his own accord. - To say that there is wrong doing in Brendan Eich's case is to go full blown hypocrite: one cannot expect freedom from public backlash due to political donations. Especially when those political donations are ones that are restrictive and critical of the dignity and freedom of others. Yes, that he was forced to resign sucks...but admittedly, I can only muster a "too bad." Public people should expect public scrutiny. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
      - nsxwolf 11y ago
        This is my big problem with the whole thing - how the left framed this issue. Instead of a debate between two conflicting but legitimate viewpoints, you framed it as one legitimate side and one completely illegitimate, hateful, bigoted, evil side. There was absolutely no reason to do this - you were going to win anyway. The divisiveness does nothing for national unity. People on HN easily forget that about half the country isn't happy about this, and those people are going to be around for a long time.
        rmxt 11y ago
        Drawing comparisons between my arguments and the political spectrum at large does nothing for your Swiss cheese argument against Brendan Eich's treatment. Why shouldn't he be subject to public criticism for his public campaign donations? Don't want criticism? Don't donate to causes that are going to cause strife between you and your resident demographic. I don't actually think that everyone that opposes civil recognition of gay marriage is "hateful, bigoted, and evil." I merely think they are short-sighted and often eerily reminiscent of 1960s era pro-Jim Crow rhetoric. Re-read your post and think "black people" and "Jim Crow" and then come back to me about "national unity". No rights are being removed from those that oppose gay marriage... the only blow to "national unity" is one where gay marriage is disallowed. Resist change all you want, but for the foreseeable future, the Overton window isn't moving back to a place where disallowing gay marriage is going to be palatable. EDIT: There are some arguments where "the other side" might not be worth it's weight. Gay marriage and acceptance of equal rights for LGBT people is one of them. See "False Balance" and "Argument to Moderation" on Wikipedia.

lmm 11y ago

> I'm talking about someone religious that may not agree with gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, but treats everyone equally (gay, straight, or trans). Your "not agree with" is hiding a lot. If someone is trying to make it illegal for one group to marry (and legal for another group) then how is that treating everyone equally?

rmxt 11y ago
It's not treating everyone equally, which is why it is cognitive dissonance on full display. All of the religious arguments against gay marriage are fine and dandy for marriage within, and as defined by, that religion, but once they are extended to civil matters their arguments fall to pieces. The GP is arguing for this split/dual nature of "equality." To paraphrase: "I want to be free to criticize and make illegal the lifestyle choices of others, but I myself want to be free from repercussion and public criticism." Good thing saner minds have prevailed on the particular topic of gay marriage in the US. Also, I would love to see any hard evidence there is, that someone making lucid and noninflammatory arguments against legalizing civil gay marriages was actually fired from any job.
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Brendan Eich. He didn't even have to open his mouth.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Since these arguments are inherently over nits, a couple of points: - He didn't have to open his mouth, since he had already opened his wallet. Money is a language of its own nature. - Importantly, he wasn't fired because of what he did. He stepped down of his own accord. - To say that there is wrong doing in Brendan Eich's case is to go full blown hypocrite: one cannot expect freedom from public backlash due to political donations. Especially when those political donations are ones that are restrictive and critical of the dignity and freedom of others. Yes, that he was forced to resign sucks...but admittedly, I can only muster a "too bad." Public people should expect public scrutiny. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
    - nsxwolf 11y ago
      This is my big problem with the whole thing - how the left framed this issue. Instead of a debate between two conflicting but legitimate viewpoints, you framed it as one legitimate side and one completely illegitimate, hateful, bigoted, evil side. There was absolutely no reason to do this - you were going to win anyway. The divisiveness does nothing for national unity. People on HN easily forget that about half the country isn't happy about this, and those people are going to be around for a long time.
      - rmxt 11y ago
        Drawing comparisons between my arguments and the political spectrum at large does nothing for your Swiss cheese argument against Brendan Eich's treatment. Why shouldn't he be subject to public criticism for his public campaign donations? Don't want criticism? Don't donate to causes that are going to cause strife between you and your resident demographic. I don't actually think that everyone that opposes civil recognition of gay marriage is "hateful, bigoted, and evil." I merely think they are short-sighted and often eerily reminiscent of 1960s era pro-Jim Crow rhetoric. Re-read your post and think "black people" and "Jim Crow" and then come back to me about "national unity". No rights are being removed from those that oppose gay marriage... the only blow to "national unity" is one where gay marriage is disallowed. Resist change all you want, but for the foreseeable future, the Overton window isn't moving back to a place where disallowing gay marriage is going to be palatable. EDIT: There are some arguments where "the other side" might not be worth it's weight. Gay marriage and acceptance of equal rights for LGBT people is one of them. See "False Balance" and "Argument to Moderation" on Wikipedia.