Quick check on wikipedia reveals that he proposed / funded a campaign to ban homosexuals from marrying.
he contributed $3000 to a political campaign against gay marriage, 6 years prior to losing his job for that reason
[1]: https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-g...
However, after being pointed to an example of that, you actually support it. (by implying that people "taking away equal-rights from homosexuals" should be cancelled).
The article I linked to explores this phenomenon in more detail.
Also, homophobia is a charged word. Heteronormativity [1] is probably more descriptive.
And also my second point: "Homophobia is not happening", it's just being conservative. But also, "homophobia is happening! and it's a good thing!"
I don't know about heteronormative/homophobic. But wanting to make gay marriage illegal sure sounds very much like hating those people specifically. It hurts noone if they marry, but they hurt a lot if they can't. I think "homophobic" is the correct nomenclature in this case, and "heteronormative" is more about your personal or your group's preference and manifestation.
Right, it often does. But yet again, that means that people do get cancelled because of voicing and supporting socially conservative beliefs.
> it's just being conservative
Heteronormative is an important part of social conservatism in the US. If you think that's not the case, I'd be curious to know what do you think a person who is "just" socially conservative believes in.
If merely your own preference were "heterosexuality, family-oriented and religious" without interfering in other's lives, then of course "homophobic" would not apply and nobody would call you that.
> what do you think a person who is "just" socially conservative believes in.
"Conservative" can mean many things, I admit that especially in the US it can mean opposing homosexual marriage. But the article was speaking in global terms ("every functioning civilization for all of human history"), and in that context it can mean many even more many different things.
All in all I find this game of "secretly being homophobic" pathetic, and that you would quote "That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is" is extremely ironic. Just be straight with it and say that you hate gays, or that certain people are lesser people or whatever you think. You're gonna get in trouble anyway. Or is it worth the trouble to hate people? Good luck.
This last paragraph is just a boring personal attack/implicit threat, and obviously not OK. You are not going to have a lot of luck convincing people who disagree with you like that. And you may get yourself in trouble on HN. [1]
[1]: From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Probably not in this generation but there's a theoretical possibility in some future generation, and it also applies the other way, polygamy, incest, etc., can also theoretically be made legal.
It's unlikely for a huge chunk of the population to intentionally lower their own status, but it's not a 0% chance.
It would be more difficult to do in Canada or some other countries, but also not totally impossible.
That's what voting and majorities and supermajorities means.
In some countries a wide degree of relationships are today being legally accepted as "family", such as brothers or friends living in a household. The important thing is that this does not affect anybody wanting to live in a traditional family.
If democracy was purely about what the majority votes, and not also protecting the minorities to some degree, we should not call it civilization then. Reducing it it to a "legal majority rule" does not make e.g. slavery legitimate or morally acceptable.
There are some extreme scenarios where that would no longer apply, but passing readers will get the point without needing to read every possible corner case.