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

Tim Cook Speaks Up

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#741

Post by zorbo »

argonaut wrote: post #721
srean wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really doubt this. You have not been frequenting the right places then. Come to Bombay, come to Delhi, its a frequent sight outside the gay bars, more so in Bombay than Delhi. Have to admit that the first time I saw it I was indeed caught by surprise. In some places you might get beaten up (yeah even possibly by the cops), or have acid thrown at your face (this punishment is reserved exclusive for women and appli…

> EDIT: Yep!! some downvotes on all of my comments on this thread. I downvoted you because mentioning how you've been downvoted is quite possibly one of the most dull things you can say on HN.

Downvotes on all your comments is rather rare, and usually an indication of downvote brigading. Nothing wrong with pointing it out, IMHO.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#742

Post by sysk »

king_jester wrote: post #249
facepalm wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. But they presumably don't see eye to eye on the subject of gay marriage.

> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?

A common libertarian view is that marriage (gay and heterosexual) should not be the domain of government. http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marri...

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#743

Post by dragonwriter »

sysk wrote: post #742
king_jester wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?

A common libertarian view is that marriage (gay and heterosexual) should not be the domain of government. http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marri...

It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat.

Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#744

Post by tibiapejagala »

vor_ wrote: post #489
notjackma wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Semantics. The fact is, of registered voters in California, more people voted against same-sex marriage than for it. Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics?

> Of course, that was 6 years ago... so why should Brendan Eich be ostracised in 2014 for donating money to a campaign which was quite popular back then? It's wrong regardless of when it occurred. > At what point did Mozilla's mission for a free and open internet turn into one about social justice and identity politics? This lame attempt to dismiss equality won't fly.

> It's wrong regardless of when it occurred.

But it can be more or less wrong in specific circumstances.

You seem pretty sure that your opinions and actions will stand the test of time, just like countless people were in the past. So sure that now we are right, and amazed how they could be so wrong.

Well, I don't know the future, but see you in 30 years. Let's see what moral fashion will rule those times. Be prepared to be judged.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#746

Post by aaronbrethorst »

notjackma wrote: post #733
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With recent big increases in support for legalization of same-sex marriage, the California public is now 61% in favor, 31% opposed according to a February 2013 Field Poll, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California...

You're quoting a rather meaningless poll given the low sample size: "The latest Field Poll was completed February 5-17, 2013 among 834 registered voters in California." Since we're quoting statistics, here are some from the CDC. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population... In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV inf…

From the poll I cited:

    The maximum sampling error estimates for results
    based on the overall sample of 834 registered
    voters have a sampling error of +/- 3.5
    percentage points, while findings from the
    random subsample of 415 voters have a sampling
    error of +/- 5.0 percentage points at the 95%
    confidence level.
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf

FiveThirtyEight rates Field Poll (at least for political races) as being "A+": http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

Your references to incidence of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men are something of a non sequitur, and—I think—underscore the value of extending the institution of marriage given that one might reasonably expect that enabling an at-risk population to engage in a social institution commonly associated with monogamy should only serve to decrease rates of transmission.

    My friends (who are gay)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument

Also, why would you want your friends to be deprived of a right you enjoy?

I regularly see billboards in my neighborhood targeting young gay men to be tested for HIV. I bet that risk of transmission would be further lowered if the stigma associated with being gay was further reduced or entirely eliminated.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#747

Post by sysk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #743
sysk wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common libertarian view is that marriage (gay and heterosexual) should not be the domain of government. http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marri...

It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat. Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the…

> It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat.

What were the right-libertarian views on marriage in the US prior to that? I'd be surprised if there were libertarians with radically different views.

> Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government.

I think the general view is that those contracts should not require a "stamp of approval" from the government and should instead be done privately and be enforced like any other contracts. Of course, in practice, a lot of laws would have to be rewritten to get rid of marital status.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#748

Post by [deleted] »

zorbo wrote: post #741
argonaut wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EDIT: Yep!! some downvotes on all of my comments on this thread. I downvoted you because mentioning how you've been downvoted is quite possibly one of the most dull things you can say on HN.

Downvotes on all your comments is rather rare, and usually an indication of downvote brigading. Nothing wrong with pointing it out, IMHO.

[deleted]

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#749

Post by Myrmornis »

anoncow wrote: post #573
avinassh wrote: post #475

Excellent news. I am from India where being gay is a crime in this country. Leaders of this country believe that being gay is a disease and it can be 'cured'[0]. According to Indian Penal Code 377[1], if you are gay you can be imprisoned for life. I had a friend and two years ago he committed suicide because he was gay. In India it's not easy to be gay. Parents and societal pressures can make anyones life living hell…

Read through the comments of an indian news website. Makes me sad. We should love more. I hope people are better than that. A lot of sexuality based and religion based hate. I hope things improve. I hope people love more. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Being-gay-...

Crikey, I always assumed the Times Of India had an intelligent readership.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#750

Post by facepalm »

marvin wrote: post #679
facepalm wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying that I am of that opinion, but it seems valid to me to be of the opinion that marriage should be for the protection of families with the potential to have children (for example). It's just an opinion - isn't that what democracies are for? Marriage comes with specific rights and obligations (like, presumably most controversial, adoption and "importing" spouses into the country). Somehow society makes r…

Gay couples do have the possibility of having children, though. Some good friends of mine (lesbian couple + a close gay friend of theirs) have twins together, with the guy donating sperm to one of the women. They have entered a "holy wow" to raise the kids together as three parents, as if they were all biologically involved. So this in itself is not an argument; while I acknowledge that this is something that can be…

I suspect people worry more about the "two dads" scenario than the "two mothers" scenario. Afaik the large majority of kids of gay couples are kids living with two mothers, one of them their biological one.

I wonder how many kids live with two dads, one of them their biological one? I would expect the circumstances leading to that situation to be very rare.

Anyway I don't want to argue in favor of the anti-marriage crowd, just point out that some arguments can at least be related to, even if they are misguided. Unfortunately we can not shut misguided people out of politics (or so it seems).

Post reply on HN