4 ms·

We don't live in such a society. Hence why "not supporting gay marriage" and "I am able to fully support people from all walks of life (e.g. all people are crea

by rmxt 11y ago

We don't live in such a society. Hence why "not supporting gay marriage" and "I am able to fully support people from all walks of life (e.g. all people are created equal)" are contradictory statements, full of cognitive dissonance. This is "shameful and childish and potentially dangerous" for someone who is trying to be the CEO of a company. The questions raised about his fitness for that role are fair ones. Considering his beliefs, I think he handled his ascendance with grace. [1] Frankly, I think he could have succeeded and supported the overall cause of Mozilla. Do I think what happened to him was unfair? No. [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

BrendanEich 11y ago
Thanks, but no thanks. For one thing, your inference from individuals created equal to normative, dyadic special positive rights (marriage) is unsound. Dyadic (or polygamous -- why not?) rights are not individual rights. They do not attach to all pairs of individuals, and never did. There's no cog-dis in my position under my definitions, which do not match your definitions. I'm a founder of Mozilla, which for over a decade admitted everyone, up to (me) co-founder or (again: me, but then Andreas Gal) CTO, or VP, or Distinguished Engineer level, all from various creeds or beliefs or "axiom" backgrounds -- so long as they left their baggage out of their Mozilla work. That changed in the last few years. Now the culture-war dissidents are staying quiet, and living on borrowed time. This is not a matter of contradictions being punished on a logical basis, since there is no contradiction given their choice of axioms. It's about winners burning losers' cultural camps to the ground. In two word, consequentialism; totalitarianism.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Polygamous marriages change the core identity of marriage: that it is, as you say, a dyadic undertaking. That polygamous marriages might be legalized is a tenuous argument that is being spread up and down these forums. Sliding polygamous marriage in while the topic is about gay marriage is changing the subject at best, and dishonest at worst. Legalizing gay marriage is about equality, allowing polygamous marriages reinforces inequality between individuals. While we are at it, bestiality/pedophilia/etc. won't magically be next either for marriage: those acts are currently illegal because they create a dynamic of harm, as opposed to one of mutual support, between two individuals. I would argue that the right to marry is not inherently a dyadic right. Before the latest law, certain people were categorically denied the sort of marriage they (as an individual) wanted because of a quality that they (as an individual) possessed and likely have no control over. Gay marriage changes nothing about the institution of marriage for any other person, and the administrative differences for the government are practically nil. Accepting your definition of the "right to marry" as a "dyadic right", where do the basis for these sorts of rights come from, if not from the same source as the basis for "individual rights"? Where does the line between "all individuals are equal" and "these pairs of individuals cannot be considered the same as these other pairs of individuals" get drawn? How is the denial of marriage to an individual not a slight to the equality of that individual? Lastly, I would venture to say that I am not a totalitarianist, nor a consequentialist. There is most definitely room for expression of contrasting opinions in the marketplace of ideas. I do apologize for the brashness above, but I fail to see what "culture" people like me are destroying when they are promoting equal application of rights. A culture whose identity is formed around restricting the abilities of others doesn't seem like much of a culture at all. (If it's being burned to the ground by criticism, it seems fair to say that that's a critical part of its identity.) To play the same sort of game that the polygamist argument relies on: these arguments sound an awful lot like the arguments for Jim Crow laws and against interracial marriage. I wish you the best and apologies for any personal vitriol that my posts may seem to contain.
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    Too many notes - or words, to borrow from the Emperor in "Amadeus". You assume dyadic marriage without stating the premise that justifies state regulation of dyads and prohibition of three or more. Self-expression is a nonsensical reason and in any case no grounds for state licensure. Plural marriage has been normative in certain times and places, and still is here and there. When it comes to polygamy, you seem only too happy to restrict the asserted positive rights of others. I shall refrain from screeching "bigot!" or trying to get you fired. Special-pleading from unstated and unjustified assumptions gets us nowhere. Post-Obergefell America must define the common good of marriage clearly to exclude or admit polygamy. I see no reason why, given self-expression and ersatz-dignity arguments used by the majority, three or more should be outlawed. The alternative is to end state regulation of marriage, and deal with normal consequences such as offspring and estate succession (not to mention hospital and jail visitation, which should not have been yoked to marriage in the first place) via contract law. (I'm not taking your anti-SSM=anti-miscegenation pattern matching bait - see Jonathan Rauch here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-ga... - and yes, I'm aware of Rauch's work in full, no need to cite his lame attempt to draw a line in the sand against polygamy. As for what camps might be burned to the ground: florists, bakers, colleges, the list grows - open your eyes.)
    - rmxt 11y ago
      I personally don't care whether plural marriage is legal or illegal. Seeing as the looming threat of plural marriage appears to be your strongest argument against gay marriage and state regulation of marriage as a whole, really makes me think you have no good arguments outside of ones that justify your personal beliefs. My "unstated and unjustified assumptions" amount to the current state of affairs in the West: governments regulate marriage, marriage regulation currently restricts this covenant to pairs, and there is a non-negligible amount of people that are being denied this covenant because of natural qualities that they (likely) cannot change. Point blank: is this discrimination? I don't care about what implications it has for plural marriage, I am talking strictly about SSM. And, for all your talk about premises, justifications and strict logic, you're fantastically excluding the middle ground, jumping to "no regulation of marriage," thus ignoring reality to play consequentialist. The state regulates marriage at the moment, so let's operate within that ballpark, no? Maybe one day we can live in a "paradise" where contracts are the only things binding us to one another, but until that day... If you can handwave away the pattern matching for interracial marriage, then it's no less fair to handwave away the polygamist argument. How will the cultures of "florists, bakers, colleges" burn to the ground? What the hell does that have to do with gay marriage being legalized? We are obviously coming from a different set of beliefs... if I could "open my eyes" to see what horrors gay marriage will bring, we wouldn't being having this discussion.

by rmxt 11y ago

BrendanEich 11y ago

Thanks, but no thanks. For one thing, your inference from individuals created equal to normative, dyadic special positive rights (marriage) is unsound. Dyadic (or polygamous -- why not?) rights are not individual rights. They do not attach to all pairs of individuals, and never did. There's no cog-dis in my position under my definitions, which do not match your definitions. I'm a founder of Mozilla, which for over a decade admitted everyone, up to (me) co-founder or (again: me, but then Andreas Gal) CTO, or VP, or Distinguished Engineer level, all from various creeds or beliefs or "axiom" backgrounds -- so long as they left their baggage out of their Mozilla work. That changed in the last few years. Now the culture-war dissidents are staying quiet, and living on borrowed time. This is not a matter of contradictions being punished on a logical basis, since there is no contradiction given their choice of axioms. It's about winners burning losers' cultural camps to the ground. In two word, consequentialism; totalitarianism.

rmxt 11y ago
Polygamous marriages change the core identity of marriage: that it is, as you say, a dyadic undertaking. That polygamous marriages might be legalized is a tenuous argument that is being spread up and down these forums. Sliding polygamous marriage in while the topic is about gay marriage is changing the subject at best, and dishonest at worst. Legalizing gay marriage is about equality, allowing polygamous marriages reinforces inequality between individuals. While we are at it, bestiality/pedophilia/etc. won't magically be next either for marriage: those acts are currently illegal because they create a dynamic of harm, as opposed to one of mutual support, between two individuals. I would argue that the right to marry is not inherently a dyadic right. Before the latest law, certain people were categorically denied the sort of marriage they (as an individual) wanted because of a quality that they (as an individual) possessed and likely have no control over. Gay marriage changes nothing about the institution of marriage for any other person, and the administrative differences for the government are practically nil. Accepting your definition of the "right to marry" as a "dyadic right", where do the basis for these sorts of rights come from, if not from the same source as the basis for "individual rights"? Where does the line between "all individuals are equal" and "these pairs of individuals cannot be considered the same as these other pairs of individuals" get drawn? How is the denial of marriage to an individual not a slight to the equality of that individual? Lastly, I would venture to say that I am not a totalitarianist, nor a consequentialist. There is most definitely room for expression of contrasting opinions in the marketplace of ideas. I do apologize for the brashness above, but I fail to see what "culture" people like me are destroying when they are promoting equal application of rights. A culture whose identity is formed around restricting the abilities of others doesn't seem like much of a culture at all. (If it's being burned to the ground by criticism, it seems fair to say that that's a critical part of its identity.) To play the same sort of game that the polygamist argument relies on: these arguments sound an awful lot like the arguments for Jim Crow laws and against interracial marriage. I wish you the best and apologies for any personal vitriol that my posts may seem to contain.
- BrendanEich 11y ago
  Too many notes - or words, to borrow from the Emperor in "Amadeus". You assume dyadic marriage without stating the premise that justifies state regulation of dyads and prohibition of three or more. Self-expression is a nonsensical reason and in any case no grounds for state licensure. Plural marriage has been normative in certain times and places, and still is here and there. When it comes to polygamy, you seem only too happy to restrict the asserted positive rights of others. I shall refrain from screeching "bigot!" or trying to get you fired. Special-pleading from unstated and unjustified assumptions gets us nowhere. Post-Obergefell America must define the common good of marriage clearly to exclude or admit polygamy. I see no reason why, given self-expression and ersatz-dignity arguments used by the majority, three or more should be outlawed. The alternative is to end state regulation of marriage, and deal with normal consequences such as offspring and estate succession (not to mention hospital and jail visitation, which should not have been yoked to marriage in the first place) via contract law. (I'm not taking your anti-SSM=anti-miscegenation pattern matching bait - see Jonathan Rauch here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-ga... - and yes, I'm aware of Rauch's work in full, no need to cite his lame attempt to draw a line in the sand against polygamy. As for what camps might be burned to the ground: florists, bakers, colleges, the list grows - open your eyes.)
  - rmxt 11y ago
    I personally don't care whether plural marriage is legal or illegal. Seeing as the looming threat of plural marriage appears to be your strongest argument against gay marriage and state regulation of marriage as a whole, really makes me think you have no good arguments outside of ones that justify your personal beliefs. My "unstated and unjustified assumptions" amount to the current state of affairs in the West: governments regulate marriage, marriage regulation currently restricts this covenant to pairs, and there is a non-negligible amount of people that are being denied this covenant because of natural qualities that they (likely) cannot change. Point blank: is this discrimination? I don't care about what implications it has for plural marriage, I am talking strictly about SSM. And, for all your talk about premises, justifications and strict logic, you're fantastically excluding the middle ground, jumping to "no regulation of marriage," thus ignoring reality to play consequentialist. The state regulates marriage at the moment, so let's operate within that ballpark, no? Maybe one day we can live in a "paradise" where contracts are the only things binding us to one another, but until that day... If you can handwave away the pattern matching for interracial marriage, then it's no less fair to handwave away the polygamist argument. How will the cultures of "florists, bakers, colleges" burn to the ground? What the hell does that have to do with gay marriage being legalized? We are obviously coming from a different set of beliefs... if I could "open my eyes" to see what horrors gay marriage will bring, we wouldn't being having this discussion.