Comment by pessimizer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pessimizer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job.

There's no evidence of this either way, and the qualifications for being a CEO are nearly orthogonal to the qualifications for being a developer. He's clearly an outstanding developer; though javascript seems the product of a damaged mind, it's the water we all swim in. As a CEO, he chooses the direction of the company and manages its employees. Being a homophobe could directly apply to some decisions that he would be tasked with making (although he promised it wouldn't and I believed him), but also speaks to his softer (non-code) decision-making skills.

>I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than his $1000 donation could have ever done to anyone.

He's been punished by not being allowed to be CEO. Feel free to cry for him, but he's 5 billionth on the list for me. The donation was made years ago, we all know about it, we still respect him and work with him. I just don't want him being my boss, or the boss of anyone I love.

What evidence is there that he's a "homophobe"?

7 million other Californians also voted for Prop 8. Does that make them all homophobes?

Either homophobes, or very misguided. All the evidence points towards Eich falling in the former camp, unfortunately. To recap:

"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs."

It's pretty clear to me that campaigning to prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same rights as heterosexuals falls under this definition.

The problem with the word "homophobia" is that it tells us almost nothing about a person. Not only does it include people who have negative attitudes toward the people, it also includes people who have a negative attitude towards homosexuality. There is a major difference here: a person and lifestyle are NOT the same thing.

Someone who does not like homosexuality can have a positive attitude toward homosexuals. The Wikipedia definition of "homophobia" is just a straw man fallacy waiting to happen.

By "negative attitude towards homosexuality" are you talking specifically about the sexual act? Because, if so, I don't see anyone arguing that heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex should not be allowed to marry.

This is a red herring for I was not talking specifically. My main point was "a person and lifestyle are NOT the same thing" regarding the negative attitudes in the wikipedia definition of "homophobia".

By today's hyperexagerrated language, yes.

    > Does that make them all homophobes?

What's your alternative explanation?

My explanation? That they were in favor of what the Proposition actually was, i.e. insertion of the following language into the state constitution:

"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

I don't think a supporter of such a clause is automatically a "homophobe". It might just be that the proponents did not wish to make same-sex marriage an institutional reality. That's not an infringement of gay rights so much as an expansion of gay rights.

Note that I'm not taking a personal stand either way, but I do dispute that it was correct to demonize Eich (and millions of others) who support the traditional definition of marriage. There's no evidence that Eich or anyone else sought to actively discriminate against gays.

Out of interest, had the language been "only marriage between a man and a woman of the same color is valid or recognized in California", would you have said supporters of it were racists?

This analogy is broken. There is nothing of substance that distinguishes people of different races that could rationally preclude them from getting married. There is a substantive difference between the sexes that could rationally limit what combination should be allowed to get married. The former opinion can only be caused by racism. The latter could have a few different sources besides "homophobia".

    > There is a substantive difference between the sexes
    > that could rationally limit what combination should
    > be allowed to get married

Interesting. Could you expand on what those differences are, that might yield rational reasons?

Also, please could you let me know if they extend to: couples where one or both are infertile; couples where one or both partners have a genetic intersex conditions, such as Klinefelter syndrome; couples where one or both partners had gender reassignment shortly after birth due to medical intervention; couples where both partners are living as men, but one was born female, but no surgery has been performed; as the before, but surgery has occurred; couples where medical accident has led to removal of genitalia; completely asexual male/female couples who have decided they wish to live together and support each other.

Also any links to your research in this area.

Lets clarify some terms: by marriage I mean the institution recognized by government. Of course, anyone can get "married" to anything they want--it just wont be recognized by government.

The government has an interest in promoting social policy it believes is a benefit to society, by way of its power of taxation. It is not entirely unreasonable to believe that society is better served with the family unit being anchored by one man and one woman, and thus believe that government benefits should be limited to this "ideal" case.

Personally I don't care one way or the other, but I don't entirely dismiss this idea either. I am hardcore "evolutionist", in the sense that I believe there is hidden value in the way things have played out over the eons. The fact that we evolved distinct sexes and sexual dimorphism is not something to be dismissed as an accident of history. There is information encoded in these facts that may not be readily discernible from our vantage point, but it is there nonetheless (just like there is practical information encoded in various culture's scriptures against eating pork). I do believe society is better off with the "traditional" family unit as its cornerstone, and so government reserving benefits for this traditional unit does make a certain amount of sense. I don't think the benefit is big enough, nor do I care enough, to try to deny people the symbolic label and a handful of tax-breaks though. But framing the issue of marriage as a civil rights issue has always seemed a little absurd to me.

@peteretep >>>Out of interest, had the language been "only marriage between a man and a woman of the same color is valid or recognized in California", would you have said supporters of it were racists<<<

I don't know what I would say about that, but that's not a true analogy except in the political sense, certainly not in the biological or anthropological sense.

Since you bring up racism, though, it should be noted that 70% of African-American voters in California supported Prop 8.

The notion that gay people are lesser and should only get the rights of the majority if allowed by their straight betters sounds like homophobia to me. If we look at equivalent historical limitations on interracial marriage (or earlier, black marriage), you'd have a hard time convincing me they weren't racist.

Before Prop 8, couples could get married. After, only straight couples could get married. The effect of Prop 8 was to actively discriminate against gay people, so if people supporting it meant to do something else, they weren't paying attention. I'd rather that Eich have been a homophobe, because that's something he can get over. And I hope he does.

Yes, it does. Many millions of Americans supported slavery/Jim Crow as well.

People were voting against the rights of gays even though the right for same-sex couples to marry had no effect on them personally.

Yes. Yes, it does.

yes, actually. not all homophobes are virulent, frothing-at-the-mouth gay bashers who use the word "faggot" a lot.

mostly its a pervasive attitude that homosexual relationships are "abnormal" or "ungodly" or something like that. its homophobic to feel that way, even if you're polite in public when discussing it.

It's the socially respectable homophobes in the suits and ties that politicians and people in power listen to, not the thugs shouting "cocksucker!" at people coming out of bars.

It does indeed.

Tens of millions of Americans supported anti-miscegination laws. It certainly made them racists.

>Does that make them all homophobes?

It does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com