[flagged]
Unless you literally are same-sex marriage?
Your two options to oppose gay marriage then are either believing the United States should base it's tax and property laws on specifically christian religions (plenty others have no problem with gay marriage), or that gay couples should not be "valid" in the eyes of the law.
No, it isn't. For some it's strictly a legal matter, for others it's both a legal matter and a religious matter. That's why you can legally marry in 5 minutes by placing a signature, and separately marry "for church".
"The ceremony that many churches do that they call marriage has no legal standing"
That's not the point of the ritual.
Plus, even if this was a strictly religious belief, that doesn't protect him from the criticism of peers. That's the cost of picking people to make your enemy. Eich resigned after the reaction.
If my colleagues, "moslim" or otherwise, were in this position, I would only say 'tough luck'
You cannot participate in (or plainly accept..."tough luck") the criticism on Brendan if you're not also willing to apply the same criticism to pretty much every muslim worldwide.
So, do you measure by one standard, or two?
I absolutely do not give a fuck about what someone PRIVATELY believes. The problem is not religious people believing in something, the problem is religious people FORCING their beliefs into law.
When muslim people do that, it's called Sharia law and I am against that, same as I am against laws based on christian beliefs.
> You cannot participate in (or plainly accept..."tough luck")
I disagree.
Had the shoe been on the other foot and we were funding a proposition to limit the recognition of Christian marriage, Christians would call it an opposition to their existence too. And rightfully so! The backlash makes sense on a logical, emotional and authoritative level. I don't see how you could possibly interpret it otherwise.
any evidence to support that claim?
I'm unclear if his views have changed either positively or negatively in the intervening decade.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/gay-f...
how exactly is that evidence that he believes "people don't have a right to exist?"
it seems like some people think people with his beliefs don't have a right to exist. maybe they are just projecting the hate in their own hearts onto their enemies/victims?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/your-money/speaking-about...
The only ones constitutionally protected are government employees since the government cannot fire someone for 1st amendment speech (but companies can because the 1st amendment does not apply to private entities)
It’s more like OP just wants to use rhetoric to have you ignore and silence Brendan Eich. Which I still think is going too far, even if I disagree with his (apparent) private political views.
And I certainly don't use it as a programmer.
Making something illegal doesn't mean that the population wants to gencide the people who do that thing.
FCOL, shoplifting is illegal and yet no one is under the impression that the population wants to genocide all shoplifters.
Trying to stop something from happening is not the same as wanting to genocide all the practitioners.
Trying to take away someone's civil rights is fundamentally different from outlawing a crime. Wanting someone to be a literal second-class citizen is, in fact, a negation of the validity of their identity. Revoking same-sex marriage is absolutely an effort to push the LGBTQ+ community back into the shadows; it is transparently the tip of the spear of a movement that seeks to roll back some of the biggest civil rights gains of the last few decades. That is what OP means when they say "don't want me to exist".
Conflating a good faith policy debate with not wanting someone to exist is patently dishonest. It is a dishonorable bad faith form of political extremism, and should get you banned from HN.
Conflating a civil rights issue with a policy debate is patently bad-faith. It is a dishonorable form of political extremism, and should get you banned from HN.
I understand that you're new here and probably think this is someplace where you can make assumptions about people, like on certain other social media sites. But I am actually a gay judge advocate (military attorney) who helped write the Obama policy allowing transgender service for the first time in U.S. history.
The fact that I believe reasoned, accurate, and earnest political discussion is important does not give you, or anyone else prone to hysterics, any basis to conclude what exactly my policy positions are.
Instead, what it demonstrates is this: in my experience, respecting people who disagree with me—even when the disagreement is something I'm emotional about and affects me personally—has allowed me to win more hearts and minds. And what's more is, it's the right thing to do. Making false accusations against people you are mad at is not virtuous under any circumstances.
It's my sincere hope that you take this teachable moment and reflect on how to be a better participant, both here on HN and in our nation's policy-making machinery.
edit: I recognize and appreciate that HN has a pretty strict commenting policy. I think that this entire subthread has gotten quite far afield of the original post, which was regarding Brave. Even the topic of the comment we are replying under was rather different from where we have gotten to now. I think that I have made my position abundant clear, which is that denying someone a right based on their identity is sufficiently close to "not wanting them to be allowed to exist" that OP's comment was not a gross mischaracterization of Eich's (possibly past) beliefs. I don't think further discussion is going to change anyone else's mind about this, and at best is going to continue degrading into a "how dare you"-fest, so I'm leaving this here. I appreciate the work you did in support of trans people in the military, and I authentically hope you have a good day.
I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity."
Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.
No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at?
No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?
Which, as we all know, are peaceful affairs where people's freaking lives definitely aren't a political matter.
Somehow the mods of the place are ok with that but if I dissented from their politics I'd be considered less than human pretty much then and there.
Too much of a mouthful. It's enough to say "I can't use a product built by people who hate me". Just as true, just as impactful...
What evidence do you have that Eich hates you? He made one political contribution and now that's hate? Gosh we are really devaluing the word "hate"
Are you seriously disputing that it is rational to hold the view "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal" and "People Objecting to Gay Marriage Are Not Calling For The Cessation Of Existence Of Gays"?
Because it sure looks, to the average reader, that you are incapable of understanding that many people can hold two non-conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time.
Aren't you able to hold two thoughts at the same time without having a neural meltdown? Why do you think others can't?
Nitpick; anything that is outlawed is a crime. This is why I chose a crime as my example.
> Wanting someone to be a literal second-class citizen is, in fact, a negation of the validity of their identity. Revoking same-sex marriage is absolutely an effort to push the LGBTQ+ community back into the shadows; it is transparently the tip of the spear of a movement that seeks to roll back some of the biggest civil rights gains of the last few decades.
I agree, but comparing a supporter of some legislative lobby to genocide is pure hyperbole.
You're trivialising genocide when you claim that someone wanting to stop you doing what you do is the same as ethnic cleansing.
> That is what OP means when they say "don't want me to exist".
There is no wiggle room for interpretation there; "don't want those people to exist" has always meant pure genocide.
It's said for drama and for pure emotional impact, while trivialising real "don't want those people to exist" history.
So, you're using guilt by association now? Are you accusing everyone who disagrees with you of violence?
From your first response to me you have been unnecessarily rude. "Facile"? "Bad-faith"? "Stooge"?
Just because a large number of people don't believe that preventing same-sex marriage is the same as the holocaust doesn't mean we are acting in bad faith.
FWIW, I get the same response from ideologically pure believers when I nitpick their use of phrases like "stare-rape".
No, he said "Thinks people like me shouldn't exist", which is genocide.
Hitler wanted the Jews to stop existing. Now we have someone complaining that them being prevented from marriage to a partner of their choice is the same thing.
It's not. The original lobbying effort didn't make the argument that homosexual people shouldn't exist. It's an argument purely in the mind of the OP.
Wanting to take away someone's right[1] is not even close to wanting them to stop existing.
[1] I'm not so sure that marriage is a right anyway. It's a state-recognised institution.
You second lie is your supposed inability to use products by someone that would actually be homophobic. You use such products every single day, unless you completely opted out of modernity.
So it doesn't count… because he paid others a significant sum to say it for him and obscure his involvement? That's… an interesting set of ethics. I wonder what you think about people who hire hitmen.
> You second lie is your supposed inability to use products by someone that would actually be homophobic. You use such products every single day, unless you completely opted out of modernity.
The world isn't black and white, and we can't read people's minds. That also doesn't mean that people's public behaviour doesn't affect others' perception of them.
My second point was regarding hypocrisy and hollow principles. You can't use a browser out of moral principle but happily use stuff from countries where there's a death penalty for being LGBTQ+.
You should tell iPhone owners this. Certainly, they would put down their phone made by slave labor to focus on something more important than fifth wave feminism or eating vegan.