91–100 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, I doubt it that this makes much of a ripple. "OKCupid blocks firefox to send message to Mozilla" is short and easily tweetable. This follow up requires more explanation.
There will be some half-assed explanation (not an apology) and it'll go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat. Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.
See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry".…
This is patently false. Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony.
There is a massive problem with your view. You think a religious belief holds any legal sway. It does not. Laws based on religious overtones are absolutely forbidden by the supreme law of the land. This might be different in other countries, but here? No law concerning an establishment of religion.
In other words, whether or not a law conflicts with any given religious belief is utterly irrelevant to that law. It should not at any point enter the discussion.
>There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.
Yada yada being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why is it OK to donate to a politician who is anti-whatever, but a CEO can't be? Seems like a double standard to me.
I think you missed my point. And besides, it's impossible to vote for or contribute to a politician who doesn't have views that some minority will vigorously object to.
> it's impossible to vote for or contribute to a politician who doesn't have views that some minority will vigorously object to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are two sides to this story, and you seem to be very eager to tell the one and handwave the other for a "why can't we all just get along" platitude. We should treat people with respect. Not create a sensationalist backlash. Not punish people for having their opinions & being politically active on a gray area. Most of all, a rational discourse should take place. Not these sensationalist headlines that are desi…
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.
I fully believe that claim, but that's because I'm a crazy anarchist. If you're not a crazy anarchist, then you probably don't fully believe that claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat. Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.
See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry".…
This depends on where and when you constrain your view. Marriage is a diverse institution with as many manifestations as there are years in the existence of civilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, "separate but equal". Where have I heard this before... >actively choosing to force religions to accept your personal beliefs. Nonsense. Churches do not have a monopoly on the word or the concept of matrimony. If there was any consistency in religious beliefs whatsoever, there would be infinitely more backlash at the Vegas drive through chapels than two people wanting to live their lives together in peace.
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 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, easiest thing to do is to amend the legal (not religious) definition of marriage to fix this problem. The religious definition of marriage is irrelevant to the legal one.
>Instead you continue to argue that codifying your beliefs into law was correct
Yeah, fuck me for wanting equality like blacks and women.
We're done here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not qualified to tell the other side of the story. I don't know why Eich made that contribution. Neither do you. It might have been family pressure, it might have honestly been that he's religious and doesn't believe the word "marriage" can be applied to same sex couple (who had Domestic partnerships available in California, which provide the same legal rights as marriage, so I find the "second class citizen" arg…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution Yes, they were also attached to its symbolic value when they used it to condemn miscegenation. Given atheist, muslims, jews or hindus can get married, and so can blacks, browns, reds, yellows and whites (with one another too, which once upon a time was against "the sym…
It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it. Separate but equal was about physical segregation of minorities, not just about using different legal terms for the same thing. And, by the way, something that a ton of people don't know about the separate but equa…