Spolsky: “The point is that allowing EVERYONE to marry IS the neutral position.” | Hacker News Reader

Spolsky: “The point is that allowing EVERYONE to marry IS the neutral position.”

meta.stackoverflow.com

8 pointsluisrudge10 comments

Joel should have just changed the logo and let the petty people who complain about a logo change, take a hike.

A BIG problem is that the majority opinion posits marriage as a "need". It can only become felt as a need through social construction and competition. This kind "need" talk has two effects: 1. More people love one other person instead of all equally. Those without a marriage or something approaching it feel worse unnecessarily especially in a well populated world. 2. Life needs can become rights. I don't know if a right to marriage will occur, but there are can be a cycle with purely individualistic marriages on one hand and purely socialistic (arranged) marriages on the other. We've already seen awkward tech people wax nostalgiac about arranged marriages - you might think their birth rate would just solve any issue but the tech these people make remakes the youths in their image. There's no logic to this process; it's not a progression.

"Satire, if it is to do any good and not cause immeasurable harm, must be firmly based on a consistent ethical view of life."

But we are addicted to satire for the sake of humor, that is, pleasurable neurological quirks that may win an argument in our minds and purely us in self-satisfied rest, but do not percieve or build an order.

"That's missing the point.

The point is that allowing EVERYONE to marry IS the neutral position."

I agree with this. However, the lobbyists and special-interest groups that made this happen (same-sex marriage) did so by ruining lives and careers.

If it wasn't destroying the career of the ex-Mozilla CEO. It was forcing businesses to close that didn't cater to gay-weddings (They shouldn't be able to turn anyone away, but they should be able to decide what to make).

I don't know why we should just ignore this evil behavior because the end result was good. Instead, it's ignored and brushed under the carpet.

It's pretty sick really.

Speaking up when you see wrongdoing is about the most double-speak idea of 'pretty sick' and 'ruining lives' I've heard. Its the wrongdoing that ruined lives. Making it public, so the public could respond with revulsion and aversion, was a natural consequence.

I don't like to see folks humbled, marginalized or demonized in public either. But giving rights to all Americans helped millions; the few bigots that got hurt (by being treated as they wished gays to be treated) is a cheap price to pay. As well as delicious irony.

"Speaking up when you see wrongdoing is about the most double-speak idea of 'pretty sick' and 'ruining lives' I've heard"

Donating a small amount of money a 7 years ago to a cause you believe in should not equal bullying and a forced firing. I also feel less sympathetic when someone from that same community is bullied because I know they aren't actually about freedom, only their freedom.

A business owner should also be allowed to have the religious freedom to not make a gay wedding cake, just as a Jewish owner should have the right to not make a nazi cake.

"is a cheap price to pay. As well as delicious irony."

An eye for an eye will only leave the world eye-less and good people like me will be forced to resort to the same tactics to make the world a better place. It's very easy to get someone fired from their job now. I guess you just gave me more of a reason to continue. Thanks.

Wow 'Nazi' showed up pretty fast on that one. Ignoring that, I'd say that its not bullying to make a person's own professed beliefs public. Just helping them out really - you hate gay people, lets let the world know. No new information, just sharing.

A cake with hate messages is entirely a different deal, than one with messages of love and tolerance. That's a pretty big difference, and conflating the two is the favorite sophomorish 'argument' of the day.

If its bullying, its bullying when a restaurant or bakery humiliates someone in public by refusing their business. But that kind is protected somehow? The irony is not of my making; its something God provides for free. The tactic of revealing your words and actions publicly is freely available to everyone; use it as you wish.

Hillary Clinton's opposition to same-sex marriage was sick and wrong and anyone who votes for her should be fired and disallowed from any future political or economic power. Same for all Romney, Obama, etc. voters. These bigots ruined lives and all they offer the world is the meat of my ice cream sandwich of irony.

>did so by ruining lives and careers.

Hospital visitation rules.

The policies of the organization with a monopoly on violence matter a great deal. Socially conservative voters and activists weaponize the state as a way to punish people for their innate characteristics and private behavior.

That violence is real and its victims are real and when you let social conservatism (or any ideology, for that matter) have a seat at the table of public policy, you are complicit in the harm it causes. When you advocate it, when you vote for it, you are personally causing that harm. You'd better be damn sure it's justified.

Real people are really forced to die alone, while their partners are forced to stay in waiting rooms knowing the people they love are dying alone, by people like Brendan Eich.

The backlash against conservative donors/voters/activists is the other part of our society saying, "you know what, it's absolutely not okay for you to use force against people because of who they love, and we're not going to respect you as leaders."

Their activism is a large part of our society saying, "you know what, it's absolutely not okay for you to love who you love, and we're going to lock your partner out of the room when you're dying."

One of those things is evil.

"The policies of the organization with a monopoly on violence matter a great deal. Socially conservative voters and activists weaponize the state as a way to punish people for their innate characteristics and private behavior."

I'm not talking about social conservatives "weaponizing the state". You are projecting this onto everyone, which just isn't true.

"Real people are really forced to die alone, while their partners are forced to stay in waiting rooms knowing the people they love are dying alone, by people like Brendan Eich."

This is a myth, sorry to tell you this. Partners have been allowed in the waiting rooms for many years.

"you know what, it's absolutely not okay for you to use force against people because of who they love, and we're not going to respect you as leaders."

So we are calling bullying a "backlash" now? Wow, just wow. I can't believe how much you are excusing evil behavior.

"One of those things is evil."

Yes, you. For thinking that ruining the lives of innocent people in the name of a cause is somehow morally right. It's just as bad as the catholic church in their day.

"Their activism is a large part of our society saying, "you know what, it's absolutely not okay for you to love who you love, and we're going to lock your partner out of the room when you're dying.""

So, If I bully a woman after she gets an abortion and get her fired..is this just a backlash against murder? You don't see how crazy you sound?

> This is a myth, sorry to tell you this. Partners have been allowed in the waiting rooms for many years.

Parent post was talking about gay partners being forced to stay in the waiting room, meaning they were denied access to their gay partner's hospital room.

This still happens in the US.

Here's one example from 2011: http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/02/paul_hard_plaintiff_in_marri...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com