Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 130 posts

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#111

Post by unprepare »

mgo wrote: post #109
unprepare wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for the same reason someone against marijuana legalization is anti-marijuana Thats the political stance directly opposed to support.

That sounds like a false equivalency to me. How is being against gay marriage being against gay people? As far as I'm aware, there were a certain amount of gay people who didn't want gay marriage either. Are they anti-gay?

are drug dealers who sell marijuana and are against legalization anti-marijuana?

the answer to both questions is yes - people can have conflicting ideologies.

Being against giving someone (or something) rights is politically equivalent to being against that thing.

If im a proponent of black people not having the right to vote, am i anti black or do i just think people shouldn't vote?

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#112

Post by mgo »

unprepare wrote: post #111
mgo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a false equivalency to me. How is being against gay marriage being against gay people? As far as I'm aware, there were a certain amount of gay people who didn't want gay marriage either. Are they anti-gay?

are drug dealers who sell marijuana and are against legalization anti-marijuana? the answer to both questions is yes - people can have conflicting ideologies. Being against giving someone (or something) rights is politically equivalent to being against that thing. If im a proponent of black people not having the right to vote, am i anti black or do i just think people shouldn't vote?

I don't think so. Is wanting to abolish marriage altogether being against straight people? Gay marriage != gay people. From what I've seen, the majority of people against gay marriage, religious people, aren't against gays per se, they just want to reserve the right of marriage for straight people. Eich didn't exactly vote to make homosexuality illegal.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#113

Post by unprepare »

mgo wrote: post #112
unprepare wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are drug dealers who sell marijuana and are against legalization anti-marijuana? the answer to both questions is yes - people can have conflicting ideologies. Being against giving someone (or something) rights is politically equivalent to being against that thing. If im a proponent of black people not having the right to vote, am i anti black or do i just think people shouldn't vote?

I don't think so. Is wanting to abolish marriage altogether being against straight people? Gay marriage != gay people. From what I've seen, the majority of people against gay marriage, religious people, aren't against gays per se, they just want to reserve the right of marriage for straight people. Eich didn't exactly vote to make homosexuality illegal.

>Is wanting to abolish marriage altogether being against straight people?

Actually youd have to say, getting rid of marriage for straight people.

And yes, if someone was saying we should get rid of marriage for straight people specifically, they are being anti-straight people; they are in favor of stripping rights away from a specific group of people against their interest.

>the majority of people against gay marriage, religious people, aren't against gays per se, they just want to reserve the right of marriage for straight people.

Right, and jim crow wasnt against blakc people per se - just that white people wanted to preserve their water fountains and deli counters.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#114

Post by lostmsu »

dragonwriter wrote: post #102
lostmsu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?

> At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)? The tax breaks for raising children (e.g., deductions for dependents, child tax credit, etc.) aren't tied to marriage, they are tied to having legally-dependent children. Insofar as there…

So we've just got from 'evil' "votes against same-sex marrige" that Mozilla CEO guy was fired for, to "cosiders tax breaks are for families to (eventually) get children" -> "votes against gay marriages because they don't get children even if though they can", which does not look evil at all.

I could probably summarize opinions of those voted against same-sex marriage in "marriage and any tax benefits coming from it are there to support people who will eventually raise children". I see, that gay people are not happy, because opposite-sex marriages still get some benefits, but some of them do not end up having kids.

In my opinion, to separate the bugs from the meatloafs, we should separate living together and having kids legally. And the first one should be available to any kinds of partners, but should not provide any benefits, and the second should give benefits, and be positively recognized in society as "family".

But allowing gay-marriages is in no way makes lives closer to that.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#115

Post by lostmsu »

tomlock wrote: post #108
lostmsu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?

Perhaps then the discussion should be about why tax breaks are erroneously associated with marriage, which in many heterosexual unions doesn't produce children (should we ban marrying a post-menopausal woman?), than about why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Marriage has many other benefits that aren't directly related to bearing children.

I agree. We should instead disallow non-bearing children couples from being married, or remove tax benefits. IMHO, we could have made it all very clear, however, most people would not understand if government would try to redefine 'family' to require kids, because common understanding of family is a deeply conservative thing, and even most liberals would not feel that change good.

I would go even further, and would provide tax credits for anyone planning to have kids in, say, the next 5 years, and I would take money back after 5 years, if no kid is out.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#116

Post by tomlock »

lostmsu wrote: post #114
dragonwriter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)? The tax breaks for raising children (e.g., deductions for dependents, child tax credit, etc.) aren't tied to marriage, they are tied to having legally-dependent children. Insofar as there…

So we've just got from 'evil' "votes against same-sex marrige" that Mozilla CEO guy was fired for, to "cosiders tax breaks are for families to (eventually) get children" -> "votes against gay marriages because they don't get children even if though they can", which does not look evil at all. I could probably summarize opinions of those voted against same-sex marriage in "marriage and any tax benefits coming from it a…

But marriage also imparts many other rights not directly related to children, and not all marriages can or will produce children, hetero or otherwise. This has always been true, so arguments relating to children as the reason for marriage are quite tenuous.

Ed: in this case brendan eich either made a mistake with his donation, or is anti gay rights.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#117

Post by tomlock »

lostmsu wrote: post #115
tomlock wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps then the discussion should be about why tax breaks are erroneously associated with marriage, which in many heterosexual unions doesn't produce children (should we ban marrying a post-menopausal woman?), than about why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Marriage has many other benefits that aren't directly related to bearing children.

I agree. We should instead disallow non-bearing children couples from being married, or remove tax benefits. IMHO, we could have made it all very clear, however, most people would not understand if government would try to redefine 'family' to require kids, because common understanding of family is a deeply conservative thing, and even most liberals would not feel that change good. I would go even further, and would p…

This is entirely unrelated to marriage, so brendan eich should be spending his money on other lobbying efforts if that was his goal.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#118

Post by lostmsu »

tomlock wrote: post #116
lostmsu wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we've just got from 'evil' "votes against same-sex marrige" that Mozilla CEO guy was fired for, to "cosiders tax breaks are for families to (eventually) get children" -> "votes against gay marriages because they don't get children even if though they can", which does not look evil at all. I could probably summarize opinions of those voted against same-sex marriage in "marriage and any tax benefits coming from it a…

But marriage also imparts many other rights not directly related to children, and not all marriages can or will produce children, hetero or otherwise. This has always been true, so arguments relating to children as the reason for marriage are quite tenuous. Ed: in this case brendan eich either made a mistake with his donation, or is anti gay rights.

See discussion below.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#119

Post by perseusprime11 »

dang wrote: post #103
perseusprime11 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am trying to simply understand the true significance of 1984. Most online searches point me to George Orwell's book. I am definitely not trolling. Being young and born in the 80s it is hard to understand these kind of things.

Your best bet is to continue your online searches, as they are pointing you in the right direction.

:) I think it is the book but I have heard folks use it in a different context like the other guy who said Reagan.

Re: What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

#120

Post by Tiksi »

unprepare wrote: post #105
mgo wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, why do you consider someone against gay marriage to be anti-gay?

for the same reason someone against marijuana legalization is anti-marijuana Thats the political stance directly opposed to support.

One of the biggest forces against marijuana legalization is from people currently in the marijuana business in one way or another. I very much doubt they're anti-marijuana.
Post reply on HN