Actively working to restrict the rights of a marginalized population goes beyond simply holding a personal belief. He is free to donate to whatever anti-gay cause he wishes, but we are also free to hold him accountable for it.
Here's a thought experiment for you. Let's say that a black woman and a white man want to get married, but there's a law on the books that says that people of different ethnicities can't get married. Would you say that this is a racist law? Would you say that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?
Anti-miscegenation laws were deemed constitutional in the United States until 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on the aptly named Loving v. Virginia. Today, this case is cited as precedent for overturning gay marriage bans across the United States.
I'm getting tired of seeing this interracial marriage argument here: they are in fact completely different. The movement against opposition to interracial marriage was an acceptance that there was no substantive difference between a black man/white man or black woman/white woman. One cannot say that there is "obviously" no substantive differences between a man and a woman, even if we restrict our consideration to the context of love. You can certainly argue that there aren't, but this conclusion does not follow from the conclusion regarding interracial marriage.
The reason you're getting tired of seeing this interracial marriage argument is because it demonstrates that your weak unconvincing arguments in support of bigotry against gays are the same as other people's weak unconvincing arguments in support of bigotry against mixed race couples. The reason you are tired is that you are wrong and on the wrong side of history, and you're wasting your energy fighting an uphill losing battle.
So stop complaining that people arguing for marriage equality are making you tired by pointing out that you're no better than bigots who argue against mixed race marriage. People's right to marry the partner they love trumps your right not to be tired of making weak unconvincing arguments. You are not the victim here.
I made a very clear argument as to why an argument against banning interracial marriage says nothing regarding the question of same sex marriage. Instead of addressing my argument head on you respond with the usual emotional non-arguments.
Also note that I never made an argument for or against gay marriage, I simply argued that your argument itself is faulty. People seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the two. Perhaps I'm a rare breed, but I will argue against bad arguments for a conclusion I agree with.
You guys are losing people by attempting to hitch the gay rights wagon onto the civil rights wagon. One does not immediately follow from the other.
Just because I'm succinct doesn't mean my assertions of fact are less valid than the rest of them. I'll gladly go into more detail when I feel like I'll be given a fair hearing.
The gist of the argument is that it's a false equivalence. It's not a radical view -- it is supported by a majority of Californians (certainly a progressive state). Unfortunately, judging from the downvotes I'm getting, this forum isn't as inclusive as it would like to be.
Regardless of the precise numbers, a large chunk of one of the most progressive states in the U.S. thinks that it's not the same thing, so it's not a fringe position. The other states in the U.S,
It's a false equivalence because being a black person in the civil-right-era South isn't the same as being gay in California. Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but they're different both in kind and degree. Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing" (the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in the debate about gay marriage.
Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding, not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate.
OK, first off, when Loving v. Virginia made mixed-race marriages legal across the United States, only 20% of Americans supported mixed race marriages[1].
Secondly (and note that I'm switching off RV numbers from California and onto nationwide numbers without any reference to voter registration), 52% of Americans nationwide supported the legalization of gay marriage last year[2].
[A] large chunk of one of the most progressive states
in the U.S.
What percentage of Californians do you think should support it before it's made legal? A supermajority? Why?
Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but
they're different both in kind and degree.
Please explain the credentials or personal knowledge that help you properly categorize the severity of one wrong vs. another.
Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing"
(the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in
the debate about gay marriage.
Patently false. Google 'regnerus' and 'michigan'.
Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in
with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking
Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding,
not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive
ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate.
Wait, let me get this straight. Are you implying that it is bad for me to claim this is discriminatory behavior because it undermines inclusiveness? That's an utterly absurd argument.
You still haven't explained why you think gay marriage is bad.
> ...it is bad for me to claim this is discriminatory behavior because it undermines inclusiveness?
By definition, not allowing homosexual marriage is discriminatory, as are any limits on who may be married, no matter how just the reason. The only non-discriminatory view is to get government out of the whole business of marriage (a view that seems more and more like the best compromise). If inclusiveness is the ultimate goal here, then silencing critics by equating them to obviously terrible people is hypocritical. Otherwise, people should be honest and admit that inclusiveness isn't the goal, imposing a different worldview is.
Reasons for traditional marriage:
1. I find a Burkean argument against rapid experimentation in our social fabric to be convincing, especially considering the ill effects of rapid social change in the U.S. in the 20th century and up to now.
2. Accidental pregnancy is a big problem. Creating mechanisms for heterosexual couples to pair of permanently, with compatible mates, is in the interest of society. This is especially true in the age of large social programs and the always-increasing extramarital birthrate, which is overwhelmingly due to unplanned pregnancies.
3. Defining marriage as a purely expressive act or as a bag of goodies is to miss a sine qua non of the institution: promotion of healthy, stable families. Families are much more spontaneous than we give them credit for, especially in the fertile ground of a heterosexual relationship. Ensuring smart pairings and then a permanence for those relationships is in the interest of everyone.
4. I believe that a family splitting itself up is much more costly than we want to admit. I believe difficulty in splitting up is a feature of good marriage tradition and law.
5. I we have already been trying to remedy the ills caused by broken homes with little success. I am not confident that a combination of birth control, social programs, education, etc. will solve this problem because we have been trying this for decades.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to people expressing themselves. If two men want to call each other husband until they die, that's their right. I'm not opposed to figuring a way to simply bestow inheritance rights or power of attorney. Or to address the other practical hurdles of that lifestyle.
But how do homosexual unions undermine traditional marriage? They don't, really, but that's not the issue here. The issue is an opposition to special privileges for straight couples (traditional marriage). Otherwise, we would be talking about civil unions or something (I'm sure some readers winced when I used the phrase civil union, which is the point). This is not about freedom; it's about acceptance. It's not just about rights and outcomes, it's about equal benefits and equal treatment.
So my view, that straight sexual partners are fundamentally different, is incompatible with the goals of current court cases and legislation involving homosexual rights. I'm coming around to the hope that we can get government out of the regulating marriage business altogether and support families in other ways (child tax credits? some sort of earned income tax multiplier for families?).
In the meantime, having government reduce marriage to simply another expression of love or a package of rights is something I will actively oppose. The stakes are too high and the damage is already being felt.
The only non-discriminatory view is to
get government out of the whole business
of marriage
Ah, we have some common ground. I agree completely with this. I think that the government shouldn't grant marriage licenses to anyone, but instead—perhaps—domestic partnership licenses, but with the whole range of rights, responsibilities, and legal precedent that the institution of marriage carries today.
I think that marriage, despite its fraught history in the context of the Christian church, should be explicitly removed from government and handed over to other parties who may partake of it if they feel so inclined. I would much rather skip the whole marriage thing given the option.
> Ah, we have some common ground. I agree completely with this. I think that the government shouldn't grant marriage licenses to anyone, but instead—perhaps—domestic partnership licenses, but with the whole range of rights, responsibilities, and legal precedent that the institution of marriage carries today.
So… the government should do the exact same thing but call it something else because reasons?
> I would much rather skip the whole marriage thing given the option.
You have it, nobody will force you to marry if you don't want to.
Right, but I don't find non-discrimination to be as compelling an end as you do. I am more concerned about the secondary and tertiary effects of restructuring what family means. The binds of marriage do not solely affect the married parties, and any argument that does not address this point is incomplete at best.
I believe the case for homosexual marriage is incomplete in this way.
Here's another one: let's say 10 men and 10 women want to get married, as a group, but there's a law forbidding that. Would you say that's an anti-human law?
And another: a man and a simulated anime character want to get married, but there's a law forbidding it. Would you say that's against artificial intelligence, japanese animation or both?
The issue is that marriage should be a simple tax/legal issue between N parties and nothing more. 10 people wanting to marry each other should certainly be given the same "benefits" as 2 people, adjusting to make sure there isn't some tax loophole.
And your second example is obviously discriminatory and against AIs. I assume the only reason you'd write such a line is because a sentient AI doesn't exist yet?
Exactly. I have read a ton on this, and I have never found a rational argument from people that justifies denying gay people their civil rights. There are lots of things they will prop up as rational, but I've seen nothing that stands up.
When there's a big group of people who are obviously anti-gay, and an intertwined group who claims that they aren't anti-gay at all, but instead just happen to have a shifting array of horseshit reasons for acting anti-gay, Occam starts whispering in my ear.
Or he's against laws that leave religious freedom ambiguous. For instance, I'm 100% in favor of allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry, but I'm also 100% against a law that would require (or leave the issue ambiguous) a religion to perform those marriages to receive 1st Amendment protections. So if I donated to support a law that violated the second principle, would that make me anti-gay?
edit: To illustrate the relevance, the main criticism I heard from Prop 8's opponents was exactly this. It wasn't the usual references to Sodom & Gomorrah or that kind of thing.
> For instance, I'm 100% in favor of allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry, but I'm also 100% against a law that would require (or leave the issue ambiguous) a religion to perform those marriages to receive 1st Amendment protections.
I can't say I've ever seen such a proposal, the proposals I've seen[0] painstakingly carved a niche for exactly this[1].
It also has nothing to do with the case at hand, Prop 8 was not "specifically allow religious offices to not officiate in same-sex marriages if they don't want to", it was to add "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." to the state constitution following a mayor licensing purely civil same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection clause in defiance of Proposition 22 (the same as above as a law rather than a constitutional amendment).
[0] for legalising same-sex marriage, rather than legal challenges to laws going the opposite way
[1] and even if/when they don't, churches are allowed to discriminate in refusal of employment and services. They are specifically exempt from the Civil Rights Act 1964's Title VII for instance, and when the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church voted to refuse service and recognition to mixed-race couples in 2011 it was completely legal.
What about private businesses? It's becoming apparent that there will be a series of lawsuits against businesses in the wedding industry to force them to participate in gay weddings or go out of business.
'bit more complex. Private businesses wouldn't be protected if they refused to participate in a mixed-race or a muslim wedding — and could always be sued either way — but I guess the exact result would depend on sexual orientation being a protected class.
Public accomodations ("workplace and facilities that serve the general public") are covered under Title II. Sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class under title II, but it can be protected at the state level, it is in Colorado (since 2008) where a couple successfully sued a bakery for refusal to sell a wedding cake (Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop).
In such states, or if sexual orientation ever becomes a federal protected class under title II, businesses will not be able to refuse service based on it, just as they can't based on "race, color, religion or national origin".
The analog wouldn't be a muslim wedding; it would be a Muslim religious ceremony.
The proprietors in question clearly stated they would sell a birthday cake to a gay couple. They wouldn't, however, sell them a wedding cake.
A better analogy would be whether a Muslim bakery could be forced to produce communion wafers. Or whether a baker would otherwise be forced to produce a cake containing speech he or she didn't agree with ("Happy Abortion!" or "Happy Bris!").
In my view, this issue is complex only because the position of the business owners in question is being elided.
No, it's closer to a Christian bakery refusing to sell communion wafers to a Muslim because they aren't Christian.
The problem is refusing an existing service to someone based upon them as a person. Not refusing to provide a service you don't usually provide.
> A better analogy would be whether a Muslim bakery could be forced to produce communion wafers.
No, it is a terrible analogy: a muslim bakery wouldn't usually produce communion wafers. The bakery in question did usually produce wedding cakes[0], and refused to provide a usual service on grounds of sexual orientation (the bakery had no problem providing a wedding cake for a pair of dogs when asked).
> In my view, this issue is complex only because the position of the business owners in question is being elided.
The business owners repeatedly made their position clear: they had a strict policy against selling wedding cakes to same-sex couples based on their "reading of the Word of God." Their position is illegal in Colorado.
Regardless, the result is that someone is refused their freedom of expression or forced to go out of business. You may be OK with that in this case, but let's call a spade a spade.
This attitude is certainly part of the reason that gay marriage has faced such opposition. Banning the expression of one group of people for the sake of advocating the freedom of expression of another[1] is not a winning argument.
[1] Not that marriage is only an act of expression.
> Regardless, the result is that someone is refused their freedom of expression
They can express whatever the fuck they want, what they can not do is discriminate against a protected class. It's been that way for the last 50 years. Don't like that? Don't be a public accommodation.
> This attitude is certainly part of the reason that gay marriage has faced such opposition.
No, that's just an excuse for the underlying bigotry. As it was back in the 60s.
I think you'd have to be at least somewhat anti-gay to go out of your way to fund an anti-gay marriage measure specifically. Most people, even those who take a more traditional view on marriage, don't concern themselves with such things to that extent.
However, it is not as bigoted as say, funding a measure against protecting gays from workplace discrimination. Marriage has a long history in our society as being between a man and a woman to provide a legal and social framework for raising biological children (generally speaking). They receive privileges in return for doing something socially beneficial. You could argue that gay marriages generally don't do the same and that it's not worth re-engineering society to make that change. Marriage is also heavily intertwined with our Judeo-Christian background as a country, so people feel as if changing the term violates their religious rights. The government really shouldn't be involved with religion, but people still feel this way nonetheless.
Personally I see no trouble in letting two people who love one another and want to form a family unit from marrying. It's their own business.
I do see a problem with trying to blacklist or shout down people who have political views that aren't socially acceptable. People who are against things like unchecked immigration or affirmative action are often tarred as bigots. Abortion is considered a human rights issue by people on both sides of the debate. As long as someone doesn't act in a discriminatory fashion at work, I'm not concerned with their personal political views so much.
> "Nobody should have it, but especially they shouldn't"
The way you've phrased it specifically makes it look like the stance is targeting gays. That's disingenuous.
Here's another phrasing: "Governments should not be involved in marriage. Increasing their involvement in marriage will only make matters worse."
This is clearly not anti-gay. This is a sufficient counter-example to your claim even if you think it's a "bad position" to hold. (I don't think it's a great position to hold either. I don't think governments should be involved in marriage, but I'm pragmatic about it and think they should open the doors to whatever kind of cohabitation people want. This includes polyamory.)
Basically what I'm saying is that being against State privileged gay marriage doesn't have to be anti-gay. It can be anti-State. I grant that most people who advocate from this position are hypocrites and are probably using it to mask more sinister motivations, but that doesn't make this reasoning invalid.
Basically what I'm saying is that being against State privileged gay marriage doesn't have to be anti-gay. It can be anti-State.
While I think this is a perfectly rational position, I'm dubious that it's a very good basis for opposing gay marriage rights.
I've noticed that libertarians and leftists both tend toward a passionate hatred of compromise and "half-measures," and this reasoning strikes me as one of those cases. If you really don't think the State should be involved in marriage at all, then you don't want the state recognizing gay marriage because you don't want it to recognize any marriage. But on a practical level, that's not going to happen any time soon. Extending gay marriage rights arguably reduces the State's ability to dictate who can and can't be married and thus increases individual freedom. Isn't that clearly preferable from a libertarian standpoint?
But to succinctly answer your question; no I don't think it is unequivocally libertarian. But it depends on who you talk to.
> I've noticed that libertarians and leftists both tend toward a passionate hatred of compromise and "half-measures," and this reasoning strikes me as one of those cases.
You mean compromise with respect to the expansion of the State. This is usually the distinction between a moderate and a radical.
> I'm dubious that it's a very good basis for opposing gay marriage rights.
Here's the problem: you're presupposing that marriage is a right.
I appreciate that marriage (along with a myriad of other things) is listed as a right in the UDHR, but that really isn't why gays---or others like polyamorous cohabitants---want marriage in the first place. They want it because of State granted privileges bestowed upon married couples. Those aren't rights.
Unfortunately, some of those privileges restrict the rights of all unmarried persons. Particularly with respect to hospital visitation. Everyone---including unmarried people---should be allowed to control such things about their lives.
Other privileges include tax breaks and the like. I won't go down that road...
With that said, you're basically telling me that I oppose something that I don't think even exists in the first place. To me, rights are much more fundamental than constructs like marriage.
The problem is that the debate is framed in terms of gay marriage. One's position against marriage in general can subsume one's position on gay marriage. But the lynch mob lacks perspective and can only imagine that being against gay marriage means being against gays.
Once you finally recognize that, "oh gee whiz, yeah, being against marriage in general is cool, but still, you aren't pragmatic enough for me."
OK. Now we're done. Before I was a bigot. But now I'm just not being pragmatic. That isn't a lynchable offense. So, we good now? (Not talking to you specifically, but in general.)
Disclaimer: I don't vote and don't contribute to any political causes/campaigns because there are none that exclusively support voluntary interaction. If someone put a gun to my head and told me to vote, I'd vote in favor of more egalitarian laws every time.
Sorry for being a windbag, but in this kind of topic, it's just way too easy to take short responses that aren't precise in bad faith.
> One's position against marriage in general can subsume one's position on gay marriage.
This makes no sense to me. When gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, the total number of extant marriages will increase by no more than a few percent. It seems, at the least, incredibly churlish to me to want to deny gay people the right to marry the consenting single adult of their choice just because you think it's unfair that marriage carries privileges. In short, your beef is mostly with straight people, but you're willing to take it out on the gays anyway, just because they're politically weaker. I can't see this as a principled stance.
And for the record, I agree that some of said privileges should be available to single people as well, like control over hospital visitation. I just think this is a completely orthogonal issue to gay marriage.
Respectfully, I think you've completely missed my point. Here's what tipped me off:
> In short, your beef is mostly with straight people
No. It's very much not with straight people. It's with the State. The State is the one suppressing people (not just gays) by giving special privileges to a preferred class of people.
> but you're willing to take it out on the gays anyway, just because they're politically weaker.
Uh, no, I'm not... This is exactly why I don't vote and don't contribute to political campaigns.
> And for the record, I agree that some of said privileges should be available to single people as well, like control over hospital visitation. I just think this is a completely orthogonal issue to gay marriage.
Then you haven't appreciated what it means to be against the State's involvement with marriage.
Against State privileged marriage => against all forms of State privileged marriage.
Once again, my point remains the same: being against State privileged marriage (and therefore State privileged gay marriage) does not make one a bigot. This runs contrary to what the lynch mob would like to assume.
>> In short, your beef is mostly with straight people
> No. It's very much not with straight people. It's with the State.
But the State is made of people. And most of the people who support, and benefit from, those special privileges are straight.
> I don't vote and don't contribute to political campaigns.
Okay -- I can understand neutrality. I just can't see your argument as supporting a position of active opposition to gay marriage.
> you haven't appreciated what it means to be against the State's involvement with marriage
Well, I was indicating that I didn't completely disagree with you about it. I certainly don't completely agree, either.
> being against State privileged marriage (and therefore State privileged gay marriage) does not make one a bigot
No. But opposing gay marriage more than you oppose straight marriage does.
Eich donated to Prop. 8. There's no way this makes sense as an expression of uniform opposition to all State-privileged marriage.
I think chipotle_coyote put it very well. Allowing gay marriage reduces the State's involvement in marriage. Presumably the number of actual marriages will increase slightly, but that is because a restriction on them has been removed.
> But the State is made of people. And most of the people who support, and benefit from, those special privileges are straight.
Governments have a monopoly on the use of legitimized coercion. Individuals don't.
The biggest trick governments have ever pulled is convincing everyone that the people is the same as the State. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
> I just can't see your argument as supporting a position of active opposition to gay marriage.
I don't know how to make this any simpler: Opposition of State privileged marriage implies opposition of State privileged gay marriage.
> No. But opposing gay marriage more than you oppose straight marriage does.
Nowhere have I implied or advocated this. The very crux of my argument is that you don't oppose or support one form of State privileged marriage over another.
> Eich donated to Prop. 8. There's no way this makes sense as an expression of uniform opposition to all State-privileged marriage.
The balance of probability supports this conclusion, but it is by no means guaranteed. This is precisely what my argument shows.
> I think chipotle_coyote put it very well. Allowing gay marriage reduces the State's involvement in marriage. Presumably the number of actual marriages will increase slightly, but that is because a restriction on them has been removed.
From the point of view of someone who is against State privileged marriage, this is ass backwards. It's not removing restrictions---it's granting privilege to a larger class of people (at the expense of those without that privilege).
You can rephrase this stuff however you want, but it doesn't change the very simple fact that being against State privileged marriage---and therefore State privileged gay marriage---doesn't make you bigot.
> From the point of view of someone who is against State privileged marriage, this is ass backwards. It's not removing restrictions---it's granting privilege to a larger class of people (at the expense of those without that privilege).
This is a cynical and short-sighted view.
It is cynical because it sees civil rights as a zero-sum game.
It is short-sighted for a closely related reason. Most opponents of gay marriage don't even want to draw a distinction between the religious institution of marriage and the civil institution. In their minds, marriage is divinely ordained, and its earthly recognition in the law is completely natural. "The family" -- meaning their particular conception of what families should be -- is all but sacred.
The gay marriage movement chips away at this belief system in several ways. First, it gives people reason to distinguish between religious and civil marriage; to see that whatever their personal religious beliefs may be, the law is about civil marriage. Also, it presents a picture of marriage as a human creation, rather than divinely ordained. It brings people into contact with unfamiliar family structures. And it makes ideas acceptable or at least debatable that previously were generally rejected. You can see this already with the debate over poly marriage.
In short, if you want to start a singles' rights movement, you should support gay marriage, because emotionally it is moving society in the direction you want, even if it is not yet doing that structurally.
I don't know why you're talking to me about divinity and sacred families. Its relevance eludes me.
You still haven't really addressed my central point, which is that one can be against gay marriage without being anti-gay.
> This is a cynical and short-sighted view. It is cynical because it sees civil rights as a zero-sum game.
I'm not talking about civil rights. You are. I've consistently used the phrase State privileged marriage. I use that instead of just "marriage" to specifically mark privileges that are given to some and held back from others. This isn't zero-sum. People who can check all the boxes get a marriage license plus special privileges. Nobody else can.
> In short, if you want to start a singles' rights movement
Now you're taking my comments in bad faith. Singles' rights? What is that? Do singles have special rights that other people don't have?
Sure, singles lose out on State privileged marriage. But so do couples that aren't married. And so do polyamorous cohabitants.
Ah, but that doesn't paint me as a selfish asshole, so it's not as catchy of an insult. I get it now.
> because emotionally it is moving society in the direction you want, even if it is not yet doing that structurally.
No. I would like society to move in the direction where it doesn't have to exude unquantifiable amounts of effort just to get government to permit them to associate in any way they want.
Your direction is just more of the same: "Oh government, can you pretty please let us make decisions for ourselves?"
The intersection of people I've met who actively fund and promote laws to deny gay people the right to marry and the people I've met who actively fund and promote laws to remove government from all marriage has been exactly zero people. I would love to be proven wrong about that, and I'm not saying your argument is incorrect, but I have personally only seen that argument used as an excuse to deny gay people the rights already given to heterosexual people.
You're most likely to find such people among principled libertarians. By their very nature they:
1) Don't care what consenting individuals do.
2) Want the power and influence of the State reduced.
Some of us are reasonably pragmatic and acknowledge that the State isn't going away any time soon. Therefore, we prefer that the State be as egalitarian as possible.
Others are less tolerable of pragmatism and do not support any expansion of State power. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation and is easily applied consistently.
Moreover, libertarians are very unlikely to even acknowledge marriage as a right. It's only meaningful in our society as a "right" precisely because governments grant special privileges to married couples. This discriminates against ALL unmarried people---not just gays.
If governments weren't involved in marriage, ALL of this would be a non-issue. People could choose to celebrate or signify their union in whichever manner they choose. To an anti-State ideologue, claiming that "well governments are involved so you might as just give them more power" is just a non-starter.
I get that participating in a lynch mob can be fun. But my only point here is that there are legitimate arguments for the other side that don't require bigotry. (Since other commenters were claiming this to be impossible.) This is an inconvenient fact for a lynch mob acting on limited information.
The important part of my comment was "actively fund[ing] and promot[ing] laws". I have no major problem with the argument that the state should be out of marriages entirely. That seems fully reasonable (at least to the extent I've thought about it).
My problem is that no one is actually trying to remove government from all marriages, as this argument would seem to imply. This argument is only used to defend removing gay rights, as with Prop 8.
Thanks for the link! I had not seen that before. I'd like to give the "get the government out of all marriage" position some more thought. As with any new position, I'm sure that will lead to quite a few questions and personal snags. Since you seem to believe in that, and I'm sure have thought about it more deeply than I have, I'd love to be able to field you some questions after a day or two if you wouldn't mind!
I certainly know people who do. But then again, I travel in voluntaryist circles, so I'm predisposed to exactly the kind of people who might have that position. There aren't many.
I oppose all marriage, but I am willing to be pragmatic about this, and will vote for both legislation that liberalizes marriage and legislation that bans it.
Sure, and that's a rational, coherent viewpoint that doesn't require you to want to keep gays as lesser citizens. The viewpoint espoused by burntsushi requires it. I don't care if you think the state institution of marriage should be abolished--I even kind of agree--but if your idea of "holding the line" is "nah, fuck those people", you have jank in your worldview and I suspect very much I can identify it.
> The viewpoint espoused by burntsushi requires it.
I don't hold that viewpoint. I was merely demonstrating that one can be against gay marriage without being anti-gay.
> "nah, fuck those people"
Uh, no. I'm not doing it to those people. Government is.
Virtually every law regulating social behaviors (whether it's created or repealed) requires oppressing some class of people. In the case of State privileged marriage, it oppresses everyone who can't or won't marry but still want benefits only available to married persons.
Yes, you are saying "these people should not have the same rights as these other people."
You can, and given your posting I am sure will, continue to represent otherwise. You are unconvincing, and somebody who votes, or donates money, in the method of your stated position is an asshole. Because making the perfect the enemy of the good and ignoring that you hurt people in the process is wrong.
"I have no chance of achieving my overreaching goal of abolishing marriage for everyone, but by teaming up with religious bigots and homophobes, who I agree with about preventing gay marriage, but disagree with about preventing straight marriage, at least I can achieve a small part of my unattainable goal by perpetuating discrimination against a small minority of historically oppressed people, because they have less power to defend their right to marriage than the general population."
Assuming that typo, I will suggest some possible ways in which restricting a phenomenon (let's say in this case "restricting" is taken to mean "advocating legislative means to restrict something)...
A) Alcohol. Let's suppose I say that "people under 18|21 should not be allowed to purchase alcohol." This technically counts as restricting alcohol but it doesn't mean I am anti-alcohol. It just means I think that below a certain age threshold, the balance of costs/benefits for alcohol availability land in the negative.
B) Patent laws. If I support laws restricting the ability of patent trolls to be their trolly selves, it doesn't mean I am opposed to patents as a whole. If anything I could value patents so much that I don't want this edge case of software patent trolling to fester and undermine the public's confidence in the patent system as a whole.
Of course you are right that in many (if not most) cases, an attempt to restrict a phenomenon is just a more politically feasible step towards a total ban by someone who is 'anti'-that phenomenon. But it is at least logically possible for one to restrict [X] while not being wholly anti-[X]
For the record I am 100% in favor of marriage equality and have been that way since I was old enough to hold my own opinions.
Eich can rage as much as he likes about inter-racial marriage or homosexual marriage or single parent families or any other topic that gets social conservatives upset. Similarly, other people are free to criticise his views. Especially if he is going to choose to take on the role of being the public face for a large institution.
Well he was motivated enough about the issue to make a sizeable political donation (although I will concede it's perhaps not a sizeable amount of money to a millionaire).
The idea that you can have a "political sphere" and then a sterile world outside that is free of politics is just totally bizarre to me. I can't even begin to imagine what that would look like or how it would work.
It works like having neighbors who voted for the other guy (or god help them, even gave his campaign some money!) but still come over for dinner and let their kids play baseball with your kids.
I think part of the problem is that it's become an identity thing. That's been intentional on the part of political campaign strategists, since it helps them.
It's distressing to see how successful their self-interested manipulation has been.
I'm talking about this in broad terms, not any specific issue, and certainly not just this one. And it's both sides of the issues, not merely one party or the other.
It's the most insidious kind of marketing there is.
Perhaps this is a cultural difference then. I'm not from the US. Most of my friends and family are Scottish. Politics (in the broadest sense) is typically the number one topic of discussion in most situations. From dinners with friends to family get togethers to hacker meetups.
Do you never talk about politics with people who's views you disagree with? Is that just out of fear of offending them? What the hell do you talk about, the weather?
Generally speaking, the more culturally and economically homogeneous a group is, the less painful and divisive (and more echo-chambery, of course) discussing national politics is. You have to keep in mind that "national politics" in the US has largely devolved into a list of wedge issues in most people's minds; most of the things people might be able to find common ground on isn't even part of the national political debate and gets handled by either local government or the Federal civil service bureaucracy.
There are neighborhoods which are fairly uniform in their political leanings where politics is commonly discussed, mostly in the "us-vs-them, go us, evil them" way; pretty reminiscent of some religions, actually. There are families like that too.
There are other neighborhoods, and families, where having that sort of discussion all the time would mostly serve to make people upset at each other, precisely because it would so quickly devolve into an "us-vs-them" argument but with both sides represented. People generally handle this by either being miserable and fighting all the time or by agreeing to disagree and moving on with all the many other aspects of life that don't involve Federal government intervention. Does it really seem bizarre to you that people would pick the latter over the former?
> Do you never talk about politics with people who's views you disagree with?
It depends on the views, the person, and what the point would be. Generally talking about positions people decided on with their brains is worthwhile. Talking about positions people decided on with their guts is less likely to be so. Figuring out which is which can be hard.
> What the hell do you talk about, the weather?
Well, some people handle this by self-segregating in echo chambers and then "discussing politics". ;)
For me personally, I do talk to people about the weather, books I or they have read recently, local politics, parenting, food.... National politics is pretty far down the list of things that are interesting to talk about with most people I end up talking to.
Luckily, if you live in a place where terrible people barely exist (NYC, SF, Massachusetts, etc.), it isn't really an issue. There are only a few times that I've run into an issue from just openly stating "homophobes are awful" as if it was the weather - the typical response is as if I had said "it's raining" - "well, duh".
My general approach is to be glad I pissed those people off, because I now know to never associate with them again.
I strongly disagree with Prop 8, and therefore presumably his views on gay marriage, and I believe not supporting gay marriage does obviously make him a bigoted; but for what it's worth, I haven't seen any reason to believe he's ever "raged" about any of those topics, to anyone.
All I've seen is a donation to a bigoted cause (which is disappointing), and then a matter-of-fact public statement that Mozilla's mission is bigger than any one person and their political beliefs, and that he's only willing to discuss this issue in more private channels, which seems totally fair.
Your original comment, and those defending it, didn't simply criticise Brendan Eich's views on gay marriage. If that was all they had done, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What you did was seriously suggest that those views might reasonably disqualify him from being Mozilla's CEO.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
It seems the UN is against gay marriage so that's where the next witch hunt should go
Its not fair to compare this with abortion. If you cut out the hyperbole and willful ignorance, both sides of the abortion debate still have compelling arguments.
