111–120 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Eich isn't an elected official.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And my response to the separate but equal argument is literally sitting in my comment above, and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. There is ONLY civil unions. There is no separation. You yourself claimed that appropriating the word marriage was a band-aid, and yet you ignore that a band-aid was in place, and a much more rational argument would have been to remove rights associated with marria…
>and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. And as I said before, I'm fine with this, but it's a process that takes longer than fixing the inequality now . You could write a law that says all marriages are now civil unions, but in doing so you've broken the dependency chain to any out-of-state agency that uses "marriage" as anything in particular underpinning any kind of contract. The simplest, ea…
Yo, FUCKHEAD: You claimed appropriating marriage was a band-aid. BUT... you ALREADY HAD THE FUCKING RIGHTS. You JUST WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
FUCK YOU. You don't give a SHIT about the rights, because you don't even know that you already have them. You JUST WANT TO FORCE RELIGION to let you call it marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califor...
---
And we've already had the separate but equal argument, don't even fucking bother with it. You can't stand that you can't make a coherent argument here, because you're a bully. A fucking FUCKHEAD bully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the "boycott" always struck me as misguided. Being annoyed at one particular person in a company doesn't preclude you using their stuff, moreso if that use doesn't imply any kind of support. Lars Ulrich might be the biggest asshole in music, but that doesn't mean he doesn't make great music.
Forgive the nitpick, but I'm not sure Lars makes great Music. Cliff wrote all the early material. All the stuff now is written by Kirk/James, and then the producer has the final say. I'm not sure I can think of a song he's written that I enjoy. Can you? However, you may be right that Lars is the biggest asshole in music. how many people (other than Prince) sue their fans? how many people flaunt their massive art coll…
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_%27Em_All#Track_listing
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ride_the_Lightning#Track_listin...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Puppets#Track_listing
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...And_Justice_for_All_%28album...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and part of my argument, remove rights from the word marriage. And as I said before, I'm fine with this, but it's a process that takes longer than fixing the inequality now . You could write a law that says all marriages are now civil unions, but in doing so you've broken the dependency chain to any out-of-state agency that uses "marriage" as anything in particular underpinning any kind of contract. The simplest, ea…
Let me stoop to your level for a moment: Yo, FUCKHEAD: You claimed appropriating marriage was a band-aid. BUT... you ALREADY HAD THE FUCKING RIGHTS. You JUST WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS. FUCK YOU. You don't give a SHIT about the rights, because you don't even know that you already have them. You JUST WANT TO FORCE RELIGION to let you call it marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Cali…
And this is in case you delete/edit your comment:
http://gyazo.com/780f9733394829fce3b5577edf4091b5
Like I said. We're done here.
I find the entire Eich scandal disheartening. A man lost his job (one he was undoubtedly qualified for) because people find it easier to heap hatred on someone they've never met, than to act with dignity and respect. We have some serious issues in this country, and our inability to compromise or respect a person we don't agree with is frightening. Life is filled with shades of grey, compromise is not "that nice thing…
I'm gay, and I would classify my feelings towards Eich more as fear than hatred. Eich very directly donated towards a cause that was bent on restricting my rights. Though fear often breeds hatred, I truly don't bear Eich ill will. I'm not happy to see him lose his job--on the contrary, I share your sadness that a talented, qualified man lost his job. However, I am relieved that a man who feels that I should not be al…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will be some half-assed explanation (not an apology) and it'll go away.
That would still be much more than Eich ever gave.
Right now who knows, maybe he was intending an apology, but if I were him this ordeal would have left me really bitter at what was the supposed cause.
What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. According to the mob you're either a saint or a bigot, and thus Eich's value as a human being was supposedly entirely determined by this one opinion he voiced in 2008. I'm staunchly in favor of gay marriage, which I consider to be a no-brainer -- but it seems to me the motivations of…
The point(s) are:
- is it acceptable to hunt a man down and force him to step down from a job he's highly qualified for, because he has held in the past political opinions that not only differ from your own, but were then mainstream and are now considered "incorrect"?
- is it acceptable for a corporation such as OkCupid to ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life for a little PR stunt?
- how can the CEO of OkCupid justify this little stunt when he himself made a donation to a politician who's an actual, self-professed, public bigot??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have public information. The public information is damning: he donated to an organization that ran a campaign of hateful slurs against gay people in order to permanently deny them their human rights in the California Constitution. I guess there might be some private exonerating information, but I have a hard time imagining what it might be.
Again, the "deny them their human rights" argument fails to pass the bullshit test. The had domestic partnerships, they had the full legal rights marriage granted available. Prop 8's entire quibble was over the word marriage, so was the pro-gay rights movement. Both sides are trying to codify belief into law, both are wrong.
The first is that you simply have your facts dead wrong. Domestic partnerships did not grant all the benefits of marriage. The federal government did not recognize them, and other states didn't recognize them, and other countries didn't. The only way Californians could fix that inequity was through supporting marriage.
Two: if this was such a quibble, why did Prop 8 proponents feel the need to spend tens of millions of dollars attacking gay people with dark and disturbing allegations? If it's just a matter of terminology, why be so hateful and angry about it?
And just a reminder, if you weren't there: here are some of the ads that Prop 8 supporters ran. If you think those are full of love and caring, well, I don't know what to do for you. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...