Hacker News Reader

Comment by hvo | Hacker News Reader

I generally don't respond to low-road conduct like this on HN. But the arrant balderdash needs to stop. Please stop calling Brendan Eich "homophobic" just because he donated money to the cause he believes in.

Nobody calls Paul Graham names just because he was in support of the end of death penalty in California[1]

  [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/prop62.html

View on HN

Somehow you think the expenditure of money is exempt from moral consideration. This is the most amazing thing I've read on HN in a while. The "cause he believes in" is banning same-sex marriage... in other words, homophobia.

And that's because the death penalty is unjust.

Your comment is the equivalent of saying "you can't call Paul Graham anti-death-penalty just because he's demonstrated that he's anti-death-penalty through donating to an anti-death-penalty cause".

Brendan sought to have the law declare a group of people unequal on the basis of their sexual orientation. There is absolutely no way to sugarcoat that or make it into a "well he doesn't actually believe this, he just tried to have it written into law for some other reason" thing.

And much as I don't eat at Chick-Fil-A, I personally won't directly financially support anything Brendan is involved with. That's called freedom of association, which includes the freedom not to associate with someone, and freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to say I find someone's views or cause repugnant and to argue against them.

If you do not understand or do not care for this, perhaps you are in the wrong place.

The cause he donated to was homophobic in itself. If I donate to ISIS and then say "I don't support ISIS" you would have a hard time believing me.

I don't understand these mental gymnastics you are trying to do.

I also think gay marriage is a bad idea in general. Were I a Californian citizen, I might well have made a similar donation. Am I also homophobic?

Before you answer, you might like to know I'm gay. Self-hating, no doubt...

Me too. Gay and opposed to gay marriage.

No kidding? You're the first I've met who shares both the trait and the opinion, or at least the first I'm aware I have.

I know my reasons. What are yours, if I may?

In my opinion, marriage is nothing more than a contract of love and commitment, and I don't need government recognition or acquiescence for it. I also think proponents of gay marriage are more concerned with parity with heterosexual couples, something else I don't need or care. A civil union has worked just fine and asking the government to recognize my union as marriage just doesn't interest me.

Out of interest if it's something you don't need or care about why are you opposed it? You don't care so much you would donate money to oppose it?

The obvious counter is the one already deployed, if only implicitly, in response to your comment - that this analysis is selfish, and says nothing about whether gay marriage is socially valuable, but only whether it's valuable to you.

I spent a day's worth of HN participation arguing against gay marriage, a few months back, and came out net positive in karma. If you're interested in those arguments, they begin here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12976422

Should you take the time, I'd be interested and obliged to hear any thoughts they occasion.

What was Eich's argument against gay marriage? Does anyone have a link where he fleshed out his position?

Does it matter what his argument was, or whether it differed from mine or Overtonwindow's? If you're willing to assume we have reasonably sensible positions on the matter - I note you haven't inquired into these, in any case - then why not assume that he does, too?

Eich's story comes up frequently on HN, and he's the founder and CEO of a business that someone might choose to support or boycott. The article is about him and his company. It's reasonable for someone to be more interested in his position than yours.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com