Skip to main content

View Diary: Brendan Eich and Tolerance (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problems with your logic (0+ / 0-)

    on this is that who gets to decide when the day starts that "you should have changed your mind"? It wasn't 2008 obviously, so when was it? The day Obama did? The day a majority of californians might? The day you did? See? Plus we have the CEO of OKCupid 9which began the move to ouster Eich) contributing to an anti gay candidate.S why is he not being removed? BTW when did Hillary shift her position?

    Additionally opposing gay marriage is, in and of itself, not necessarily an anti gay position. It can be of course, but it can also be respecting a tradition, recognized for thousands of years, as a social and religious contract among opposite sex couples. Finally, one's private views on public policies should not lend them to being expelled by boycotts when their private views have no bearing on their work- either as an employee or as a boss. I agree that there is a line where tolerating intolerance is not acceptable. I am just not comfortable that that was the case in this situation.

    •  Simple (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook
      who gets to decide when the day starts that "you should have changed your mind"? It wasn't 2008 obviously, so when was it?
      If you're an anti-gay bigot, then every day is the day that you should have changed your mind.

      And clearly, being an anti-gay bigot does have bearing on the work of a CEO at Mozilla, considering the responses of organizations like OKCupid.

      •  Let me ask (0+ / 0-)

        Was Obama an anti gay bigot when he opposed ay marriage?

        What did Eich actually do at Mozilla that was anti gay?

        •  Obama depends. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          homogenius

          If he actually opposed gay marriage like he claimed, then yes he was. If it was a statement to provide political cover, then no.

          What did Eich do? As CEO? Nothing, he resigned.

          What could he have done as CEO? Besides ruin Mozilla's brand? Plenty.

          The biggest difference between Obama and Eich, however, was that one of those days in the intervening period was the day that Obama changed his mind. Therefore, we can talk about Obama's bigotry in the past tense, and Eich's in the present.

          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

            You do not know:

            "If it was a statement to provide political cover, then no."

            AND:

            "was the day that Obama changed his mind. "

            What makes that the magic day? Was Obama a raging bigot the day before and did you vote for him?

            See this isn't binary at all.

            •  I already covered what I didn't know. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              Thus the 'If...then...' clause.

              What makes that the magic day? It's the day he changed from being an anti-gay bigot to not, at least on that particular topic. What's so hard to understand about it? A day that hasn't yet happened for Eich.

              It is binary.

              I'm seriously confused. In once case you have someone who stopped being a bigot, in the other case you have someone who still is a bigot.

              And somehow you're trying to equate the two.

              It's pretty weird.

          •  So Obama is either a bigot or a liar. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dallasdunlap

            Got it.

      •  You realize that the CEO of OKCupid (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dallasdunlap

        donated to an anti gay candidate right? Why does he get a pass?

        •  I don't see where... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ozy

          Ozy is making any claim that the CEO of OKCupid is deserving of a pass. You might as well be asking why does a tree fall on one person and not another.

          This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

          by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 03:59:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's already been covered (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook

          but contrast OKCupid's apology:

          http://www.advocate.com/...

          with Eich's apology:

          HTTP://NOSUCHTHING

          •  An apology AFTER he got caught (0+ / 0-)

            isn't really to be taken that seriously, especially when he went after Eich. Pot meet kettle.

            •  Two things. (7+ / 0-)

              Donating to a politician that may support many positions you like, and happens to also be against gay marriage is pretty different than specifically donating to Prop 8.

              Second. Eich got 'caught' and still hasn't apologized or recanted.

              Just what does that tell you? Cause it tells me a hell of a lot.

              So no, once again you're trying a bullshit false equivalence.

              Why don't you find another CEO who donated to Prop 8, and use them for comparison? Like the Chick-Fil-A guy...why not use him for comparison?

              I'll be happy to call him a bigot too.

            •  One question. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              Why are you so invested in defending Eich.

              What specifically about his character do you think is so compelling to warrant your defense?

              •  I am not into defending Eich (0+ / 0-)

                but rather civil discourse and liberty. I am not a know it all and am torn on questions such as this. I disagree with Eich's position but do not think he should be driven from his position for his private beliefs.

                it is just so censorious and intolerant to me.  I always try to put myself on the other side of the issue to see how it plays.

                I am not 'trying" anything, and please, you can save the vulgarities for others. I just think people are entitled to their private beliefs in the main. Obviously you disagree with that. That is fine. But remember that can cut many ways.

                •  I don't understand at all. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vacantlook, Tonedevil, aimeehs

                  Whose liberty are you defending, Eich's, or the people who exercised their civil discourse and freedom to object?

                  OKCupid was not 'uncivil' when they suggested that people might want to use another browser, that was a perfect example of free exercise of completely civil behavior.

                  I am not 'trying" anything, and please, you can save the vulgarities for others.
                  What vulgarities are you referring to? The word 'bullshit'? Seriously?
                  I just think people are entitled to their private beliefs in the main. Obviously you disagree with that.
                  Arrrgh, I can't believe this is STILL being trotted out.

                  Of COURSE he is entitled to his private beliefs, HOWEVER:

                  1) we are not talking just about beliefs, but about his ACTIONS directly targeting the happiness and civil rights of gay people

                  and

                  2) Just as he is entitled to his beliefs, others are entitled to theirs, and that includes the belief that companies like Mozilla who appoint bigots to their leadership position should be held accountable.

                  So no, I don't 'disagree' with your statement, I merely 'disagree' that it is at all an accurate portrayal of this situation.

                  That is fine. But remember that can cut many ways.
                  What, you mean that gays might be discriminated against in the work place?

                  Say it ain't so...

                  •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                    His "public" act of donating money to a campaign that would codify the very law that Bill Clinton signed. We can assume that you do not think Clinton was worthy of a movement to deny him his various posts? When did Hillary change her mind and why wasn't she considered anti gay beforehand? My point is not what he gave money to- or did or did not endorse - but who gets to make the call on the precise moment this beliefs cross a line. It all seems so very subjective and if I dare say, politically convenient to include some and exclude others when defending those types of things. But we disagree.

                    •  And Bill Clinton and everyone else... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil

                      ...that supported governmental discriminate against gay people were bigoted to do so.

                      Just because Eich's resignation has somehow spurred a large number of liberals on this website to demand we accept homophobia out of not wanting to offend people who identify as liberal but have homophobic positions in the past (or even currently) is not a valid reason to ignore homophobia.

                      •  I never said it was (0+ / 0-)

                        I said that defining things like "anti gay" and homophobia are difficult and even more problematic is the demarcation of when one's views should have changed on these matters. That is all over the map as I have indicated. The more zealous seem to know who are bigots, who were bigots but have properly made amends and the correct time, and who were bigots and have not properly made amends. But there is no consistency in their rulings.  

                        •  ? Where is the inconsistency? (0+ / 0-)

                          Please point it out.

                          Are you going to be arguing the same line 10 years from now? Or will that have been 'long enough' in your mind that people who are still anti-gay marriage are now bigots.

                          Or do we have to wait 20 years? Or 50 years?

                          Just because you can't seem to wrap your head around a demarcation doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly bedeviled.

                          You can talk about the past, or you can talk about the future.

                          But the most important is the present. Are any of those people you listed still against gay marriage? No. Is Eich? Yes.

                          Don't know why you find this so complicated.

                •  His beliefs ceased to be private (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vacantlook, Tonedevil

                  when he made that donation.  At that point, it wasn't his beliefs but his activities.  And those activities weren't his belonging to church that refuses to marry gay couples.  That activity involved using the legal system to deny others their rights.  As I said, hardly a "private" activity.

                    •  I've read the whole thread and (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil

                      "see above" doesn't address my comments.

                      •  My point (0+ / 0-)

                        is that a majority of California voters used the legal system to do the same thing. Indeed 60% of Microsoft employees did- why not a call to boycott MS products and services?  Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law . Reid, Biden, Schumer, and a host of proper Democrats voted for that legislation. They used the legal system to do exactly what Prop 8 was doing. Why aren't they considered anti gay bigots as well? Indeed Eich's position on marriage was like Obama's.

                        When people start to judge who is moral and who isn't on such a complicated, personal, socially shifting matter I get uncomfortable. I'd rather tolerate dissent than squelch it.

                        •  "My point (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tonedevil

                          is that a majority of California voters used the legal system to do the same thing. Indeed 60% of Microsoft employees did- why not a call to boycott MS products and services?"

                          I had no idea the State of California asked people what company they worked for before allowing them into the voting booth.  They don't do that here in New York.   In fact, they don't even ask if you are employed or not, let alone what specific company you work for.  I'm beginning to understand why you are so paranoid about this issue.  In nay case don't most of Microsoft's employees in the US work in Washington State?  Memory serves, they voted in favor of marriage equality.

                          Obama never sent a check to the Prop 8 backers, and he said he opposed a constitutional amendment that limited rights.  Hardly the same position as Eich.

                          All those other good Democrats that you mentioned have since renounced what they said and did.  Mr. Eich didn't.

                          The  matter is neither complicated nor personal.  The government denying rights to some while granting it to others is both most definitely a public matter and pretty simple to understand.

                          •  It isn't that simple (0+ / 0-)

                            Polls show a growing number of Americans support gay marriage but that is only at about 50%. And that shift to a plus has even very rapid. My point is that if the shift in thinking while welcome, is quite recent and I don't  think it is fair to say "on this day all must be evolved". Five years? Three years? Hard and fast social beliefs change with their own speed. Not according to the dictate of a few.

                            Politicians change their positions in response to votes 99% of the time. So I really do not count their sudden change of heart. Sorry. I just do not trust them that much.

                            I am not paranoid just troubled, it just seems that what he "thought" (and yes I realize he donated money- to support his thoughts) made him a target rather than how he behaved in any fashion.

                            BTW it was Intel not MS (my bad)

                            We shall disagree.

                          •  I don't think it is fair to say ;on this day all (0+ / 0-)

                            must be evolved'. Five years? Three years? Hard and fast social beliefs change with their own speed. Not according to the dictate of a few."

                            One, they don't have to evolve, ever,  They just don't get to impose their lack of evolution on everyone else.  Again, this isn't what they practice in their homes or what they believe in their churches.  This is their imposing that on others who don't believe that way.  That's what the abortion debate is all about as well -- your religious beliefs in this society stop at the tip of your nose, and you are not entitled to impose them on my conscience.

                            Oh, and the genuine few who dictated this were the board members of Mozilla.

                            "Politicians change their positions in response to votes 99% of the time. So I really do not count their sudden change of heart. Sorry. I just do not trust them that much."

                            You mean that you get elected because your polices are approved of by the majority? Um, I think that's called a democratic republic, right?

                            "I am not paranoid just troubled, it just seems that what he 'thought' (and yes I realize he donated money- to support his thoughts) made him a target rather than how he behaved in any fashion."

                            Again, the act of donating money took it beyond a thought and made it an action, and also made it a public act, not a private one.

                            And I'm curious why there is a concentration of anti-gay bigotry at Intel.  Very odd.  

                          •  Actually you have good points except (0+ / 0-)

                            You are right people should not dictate their views on others- no matter their basis- religious or otherwise. But I actually get the traditional aspect of this argument, While I don't necessarily agree i do understand where they are coming from. I know lots of fair minded, tolerant, genuinely nice people who are uneasy about the issue. It isn't just that simple.

                            As for the "few". A comparative "few" led by OKCupid campaigned to get Mozilla to dump Eich. The boycott worked.

                            As for abortion, there are quite a few, me among them, that regard science (viability of life) as the determining factor rather than religious teaching when life begins.

                          •  "Actually you have good points (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            except people should not dictate their views on others- no matter their basis- religious or otherwise."

                            I'm not sure what the "except" means here.  You seen to be agreeing and making an exception while continuing to agree with me.

                            All public policy is dictating someone's views.  The issue becomes whether or not those views have a basis in a public policy goal or are based solely on religious or other irrational grounds (i.e., prejudice).

                            "But I actually get the traditional aspect of this argument, While I don't necessarily agree i do understand where they are coming from. I know lots of fair minded, tolerant, genuinely nice people who are uneasy about the issue. It isn't just that simple."

                            I'm pretty sure there were some nice, upstanding people who were in favor of segregation as well.  Especially when you throw in the "traditional" argument.  Race-based subjugation was a "tradition" in this country for 350 years.  Otherwise nice people can be wrong or unaware of the impact of what they believe.  And people who think that some people should have Constitutional rights and others shouldn't aren't really what I would call "fair minded."

                            Oh, as as afar as "tradition" is concerned, the idea of marriage as a monogamous linkage between two people based upon self-selection and love with both being equal partners is about 40 years old in this society, and still doesn't exist in many others.  When people use the phrase "traditional marriage" they honestly have no idea of the changes to marriage over the centuries, nor the variations across cultures.  History and experience are not kind to their view that marriage is immutable and unchanging.  

                          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            "marriage as a monogamous linkage between two people based upon self-selection and love with both being equal partners is about 40 years old in this society, and still doesn't exist in many others."

                            Huh? Not sure I follow what you mean there.

                            I suspect you know full well that there is difference between racial segregation and denying people constitutional right based on their skin color and some people's uneasiness with redefining a social institution (but not blankly denying constitutional right) like marriage.  

                            Again, most prominent Democrats had the religious based view that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman at that time. I do not think The Clintons or Obama et. al, were horrid bigots for holding that opinion.

                          •  Racial Segregation... (0+ / 0-)

                            and segregation based on sexual orientation is the same, or at least equivalent. Denying marriage rights based on either is also the same degree of wrong. Was someone who was a proponent of anti-miscegenation laws laws a bigot? How about if they still hold those views?

                            This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

                            by Tonedevil on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:39:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

                            They are. But that is an apples and marbles comparison.

                            We were/are not talking about segregation, but rather the definition of marriage. Not where one can eat, work, go to school, live, access to the legal system, protection from the courts, or civil unions. And again, I agree with the ruling on Prop 8 (even though I am not a California resident) but I do not think that everyone who supported prop 8 (or DOMA for that matter) is a raging bigot.

                            Although we have gone past the original point/post I think. Interesting discussion though. Take care.

                          •  "marriage as a monogamous linkage between (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            two people based upon self-selection and love with both being equal partners is about 40 years old in this society, and still doesn't exist in many others."

                            Huh? Not sure I follow what you mean there."

                            You seem to be blissfully unaware of the way marriage has changed over time.  It was a legal institution to convey property (hence why serfs and slaves, who had no property, couldn't get legally married).  Women married and became chattel to their husbands.  Whatever assets they inherited went to their husbands, they couldn't own property and they had no rights whatsoever regarding their own children.  That was true in this country until the early twentieth century, BTW. And did you know that as late as the early 1970s, banks were allowed to require that a woman seeking a loan get approval from her husband?

                            Marriages were arranged by parents and were not based upon love but upon what was viewed as most economically advantageous for the families involved.

                            And that doesn't include any traditional marriages that were polygamous or polyandrous (and there is a long history of that in many cultures).

                            Clearer now?  The point is that all this waxing rhapsodic about the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, ordained by God in love that has been ever the same throughout history and across cultures, hence, why it can't be changed to include gays and lesbians is a steaming pile of bullshit.

                            "I suspect you know full well that there is difference between racial segregation and denying people constitutional right based on their skin color and some people's uneasiness with redefining a social institution (but not blankly denying constitutional right) like marriage."

                            Because no one was uneasy at redefining the social institution of segregation?  Because no one used the Bible and "we've always done it this way" (i.e., tradition) as rationalizations for segregation?

                            And why is one inherent characteristic (skin color) more important than another (sexual orientation)?   There is no difference when it comes to discrimination for either.

                            "Again, most prominent Democrats had the religious based view that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman at that time."

                            Cite?  In particular, please show where it was claimed to be religiously-based.  Especially in the case of Bill "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" Clinton.  LOL.

                          •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                            "It was a legal institution to convey property ". Yeah, that's the only reason anyone got married before 1974.  Thankfully  my grandparents, and great-grandparents  were "blissfully unaware" of this arrangement.  Blissfully unaware? Look in the mirror.

                            As for the religious basis for opposing gay marriage by prominent democrats, you can goggle those who voted for DOMA but here is one quote you can chew on:

                            ""I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix.""

                          •  "It was a legal institution to convey property " (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            . Yeah, that's the only reason anyone got married before 1974.  Thankfully  my grandparents, and great-grandparents  were "blissfully unaware" of this arrangement.  Blissfully unaware? Look in the mirror."

                            The reason your logic is so weak on this topic is because your thinking is so terribly muddled.  There is a romantic basis for marriage, which is, in the history of our culture, a very new thing, and still doesn't exist in many other cultures.

                            There is a religious basis, which is also fairly new -- it started in the Middle Ages.  Kingdoms and alliances were built upon which monarch's child married which other monarch's child.  The Church was very involved in secular power in those days, and one of the ways it enforced that power was by determining who was eligible to marry whom, which was then sanctioned by a Church wedding.  Before that, marriages were not performed in churches, and, if memory serves, Paul considered marriage a lesser state than celibacy and churches were not to be used to sanctify such inferior lifestyles.  

                            Finally, there is the legal basis of marriage, which, whether your feelings like it or not, always was and always will be about property and custody of children.  Just ask anyone who has been through a divorce.

                            Hopefully, that clarifies things a bit for you.

                            Thanks for the cite.  I love President Obama, but one of his flaws is his need to make everyone happy.  He really should stop all the pandering to the religious wing-nuts.  It's beneath him, it's the Republicans' job and it's certainly not going to win him any points with the wing-nuts.  It's pointless, and it's embarrassing to his supporters, who tend to prefer the rational.

                          •  Romantic basis and more (0+ / 0-)

                            I am not muddled, and please save the juvenile condescension for yourself.  Romantic (or sexual) reasons for marriage are not "recent", nor are religious ceremonies (1300 or so). Unless you really think that 700 years ago is recent.

                            As for the legal basis being property, there is that aspect- who owns our stuff if we split- , but not the reason.

                            As for Obama I see you rationalize his statement on the matter but take others seriously. Cognitive dissonance? Clintons, Biden, Leahy, Reid, many many others said much the same. Were they also just pandering or being sincere?

                            I'm not sure why you think Obama was pandering? Or why you love someone who is, according to you, so hypocritical and manipulative?

                          •   "Romantic (or sexual) reasons for marriage (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            are not "recent", nor are religious ceremonies (1300 or so). Unless you really think that 700 years ago is recent."

                            "Marriage developed independently in hundreds of human civilizations, so it’s difficult to pinpoint history’s first marriage or even the society that first conceived of marriage as an institution. Early Sumerian marriage agreements, which date to the third millennium B.C., are among the oldest records relating to marriage. The couples swore an oath to a series of deities in a small number of agreements, but most of the records contain no mention of gods or religion, suggesting that the Sumerians viewed weddings as legal events. "

                            http://www.slate.com/...

                            So, given that 1,300 AD is, what, 3,000 plus years later, yeah, that's a pretty recent development.

                            "As for Obama I see you rationalize his statement on the matter but take others seriously. Cognitive dissonance? Clintons, Biden, Leahy, Reid, many many others said much the same. Were they also just pandering or being sincere?"

                            I seriously doubt Bill Clinton made a religous argument for marriage.  And the point remains that all these folks have since seen the error of their ways.  Patrick Leahy in particular is a strong champion of marriage equality.  The point also remains that Brendan Eich hasn't seen the error of his ways.

                            "I'm not sure why you think Obama was pandering? Or why you love someone who is, according to you, so hypocritical and manipulative?"

                            Nobody's perfect.  And as long as people are willing to learn and adapt, I'm perfectly willing to forgive their prior errors.  Again, Eich isn't willing to do that.

                            Bigger picture, what I don't understand is why you continue to be an apologist for people who are obviously prejudiced.  I honestly don't care how sincere they think they are.   Slave owners and segregationists were sincere in their belief that those two institutions were divinely ordained.  Misogynists throughout history have considered themselves carrying out God's plan as  they denied women rights and abused them.  Every Catholic who killed Protestants and every Protestant who killed Catholics in the Thirty Years War no doubt believed they were carrying out the divine will to rid the world of apostates.  The 9-11 attackers were motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs as they killed over 3,000 people.

                            It's not just religious sincerity that counts, it's what people's actions are based upon those deeply held beliefs.  Actions that hurt others aren't neutral, even if the people who carry them out honestly believe they are doing God's will.  You don't get a pass on hurting others just because you think God told you to.

                          •  wow (0+ / 0-)

                            wanting to hold on to a traditional definition marriage (yes it is a tradition- and no I do not consider 1300 "recent") isn't quite the same as beheading non believers, or bombing the taxi stand you know.

                            I and not apologizing for prejudice. I am saying that i understand where people have serious and pure concerns about redefining marriage. Just as Obama,Clinton and everyone see did just 5 years ago. Talk about "recent".

                            Yes I agree about peoples actions. But you yourself pointed out Obama was behaving in a most deceitful manner- and who's to say he still isn't taking apposition strictly for political purposes? Fool me once, twice, all that.

                            As for Clinton: "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. "

                            Your guess is as good as mine.

                            I take it you are not a fan of religion, but as a Catholic I come at it from a different place. So we will disagree. That's cool.

                          •  I once was a Catholic, and, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            quite honestly, the Church was incompatible with my sense of dignity as a woman and a human being.  Harsh, I know, but the Church could not accept that fact that I was neither a lifelong virgin or nor a breeder.  It had no place for me.  And the Church still has no place for strong, independent women.  Just look at the witch hunts perpetrated against American nuns.  All while covering up the actions of pedophile and pederast priests.  Shameful.

                            "wanting to hold on to a traditional definition marriage (yes it is a tradition- and no I do not consider 1300 "recent") isn't quite the same as beheading non believers, or bombing the taxi stand you know."

                            Why is is so hard for you to understand that holding on to that position, regardless of its history, hurts people?  It hurts the gay couple or lesbian couple who can't get legal recognition of a relationship that has lasted thirty or forty years, well beyond those of their heterosexual friends and family, some of whom get married every five years in Vegas, at the same time they end one car lease and start another?  It hurts the children of these relationships, who grow up with the pain and uncertainty that their parents' relationship isn't valid and they can be taken away at any time from the only family they've ever known and in which they are truly, deeply loved?  I'll admit that isn't as dramatic or immediately traumatic as bombing a taxi stand, but it's a long-term, slow, painful thing.  It's chronic rather than acute, and that doesn't make the pain any less, just more drawn out.   And, as anyone who has suffered chronic pain will tell you, it's as bad or worse than acute pain.

                            I don't care how deeply religious views are held, or how long people have held them.  If they hurt other people, especially if they want to use the government to hurt other people who don't believe the way they do, that's just wrong.

                          •  I can totally agree (0+ / 0-)

                            in principle if not in kind with all you say. I grew up Presbyterian (God's chosen frozen). My wife is Catholic and we became pricing for the sake of her, the family culture, and of course progeny. It wasn't required or even asked- but her Catholic culture (i"ll refrain from theology- as she is not doctrinaire Catholic in practice) was so much a part of the fabric of her family as posed to the "passive" part Presbyterianism played in mine.

                            I can dig the women thing. I have some misgivings myself. And I am totally behind efforts to reform the culture of abuse. My wife is actually on the board of the Diocese abuse council (as a counselor/therapist). I'd rather see the true meaning of The Church fulfilled and fixed by men/women as it was abused by men, rather than give up.

                            I also understand how the opposition to gay marriage is tough. My niece, who I love dearly is gay. It was heart wrenching for her to come out to her parents (she actually talked to my wife before anyone else) and I totally support gay marriage. but I also understand the strain with tradition and religious belief. And people who have sincere love in their heart without agreeing to gay marriage. As I have maintained since the beginning of this conversation, it just isn't that simple. It is very, very complicated.

                            Peace be with you.

                          •  There are individual Catholics who are awesome. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mister T, Tonedevil

                            I grew up with some parish priests, and nuns who taught me my catechism, and if they were still alive, even as an atheist, I'd walk through fire with any one of them.  Obviously, that was a long time ago and I have no idea what their views were on homosexuality and how accepting they were then.  (Heck, at the time I was a child and didn't even know what sexuality was.)  I just know they were compassionate people who recognized that humans are flawed and worthy of love.  I was very lucky.  My childhood came immediately after Vatican II and between that and the social ferment of the sixties, it was all about rights and recognizing the worth of people who weren't like you.   My childhood was about widening the circle, and it's a reflex for me now.  And I tend to forget that not everyone was lucky enough to have that experience.  No one born later can possibly understand how exhilarating that was.  Anything was possible.  Reagan's greatest crime wasn't Iran-Contra or cheerfully letting gay men die horrible, agonizing deaths from AIDS alone and ostracized to pander to his base (although that was the number two crime, the evil bastard, and if I believed in Hell, I'd hope he'd frying there just for that), it was shutting down all that beautiful possibility that everyone could respect each other.  It became all about people being valued by their net worth.  And now I've scaled back my expectations and one of the few things I dare to want is that the circle can be widened a little more to include my gay friends and my lesbian friends being able to form legally recognized families. That's all.

                            By the way, my husband is a former Presbyterian (he's sort of a Buddhist now) and I can imagine his getting a genuine chuckle out of "God's chosen frozen."

                •  So... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil

                  ...you think people should be forced to use Mozilla software? Because people turning to other company's software is what caused Eich to resign. Are users not allowed to choose different software?

                  •  No (0+ / 0-)

                    I ever said that either. I've said that the move to force his resignation because he believed marriage was between a man and a woman is selective and hypocritical. A lot of people believed that at the time including he Clintons, most prominent Democrats, and the current President. Not to mention the OKCupid CEO who started the whole movement donated to a candidate who opposed gay rights.

        •  Did you read... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook, aimeehs

          ...far enough down in the Mother Jones piece to which you provided a link to see Yagan's statement to the SF Chronicle?

          To where he explained he donated to Cannon "because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property," and went on to add, "I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today?"

          Are you aware of any similar statement from Eich?

          And did you note this distinction from Yagan: "... a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage?"

          Are you suggesting there is such equivalence, either between the two actions or the respective situations of Eich and Yagan?

          •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

            and just because that vote was in his financial interest doesn't give him a pass on hypocrisy.

            •  Where... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, homogenius, anon004
              I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today.
              ...is the "hypocrisy?"
              •  Ummm... OK (0+ / 0-)

                "not knowing where he stood on gay rights" but knowing where he stands on personal financial interests? But he's SO interested in gay rights when it comes to other CEOs? Yeah, sure. Right.

                •  Have you known... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil, anon004, vacantlook

                  ...every position on every conceivable issue of every candidate for whom you ever voted or contributed?

                  As someone once said, "Yeah, sure. Right."

                  And you seem to have neglected:

                  ...and I would not make that contribution again today.
                  I suggest that if Brendan Eich had made that same statement, that would have been the end of it, and he'd still be CEO.
                  •  I've known where they stood on (0+ / 0-)

                    issues that were THAT important yes. Heh.

                    •  And the beauty of it is... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil, anon004

                      ...you get to decide what's "THAT" important to you and when (as I said earlier), just as Messrs Yagan, Obama and Eich do.

                      And others get to decide whether or not to support those whose opinions agree with their own, even if they differ from ones held in the past.

                      Which again brings us to my final point above about both Yagan and Eich, and which you've again neglected.  

                      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                        you seemed to imply that Yagan was innocent of knowing where that candidate stood on an issue that is, of such  importance to him, that he would hound another CEO out of a job over it. I find that very hard to believe. Thus, my charge of hypocrisy.

                        •  I didn't "imply" it... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tonedevil, anon004

                          ...he said it.

                          Neither of us can know what was in Yagan's mind, what was important to him or what he was aware of at the time.

                          This, however, at this time...

                          I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today.
                          ...is definitive, and good enough for me.

                          As - and I add with emphasis - it would have been had it come from Eich.

                          •  heh (0+ / 0-)

                            Well I've got a bridge for sale. A for Eich he IS entitled to his opinions without repercussions. I thought. Maybe he doesn't feel he should recant just because he was caught in a hypocritical campaign against a private citizen. Doesn't matter now, the double standard is already solidified. And again that is my point. Why is TIDAy the magic day? What wasn't 2008? 2007? Who gets to be the arbiter of designating morality day? What are the criteria? See where I get a religious fundamentalist vibe?

                          •  It's always difficult for me... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mister T

                            ...to resist a rebuttal - and I think we've already covered the ground referenced above, anyway - but I'll say this has been an engaging debate, and I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have.

                          •  One, Eich's opinions did not have reprecussions, (4+ / 0-)

                            his activities did.  And those activities involved using the political system to take away the rights of someone else.  Hardly just having an opinion.

                            Why is today the magic day?  Because today (or, rather a couple of weeks ago), this guy was the new CEO of Mozilla.  His activities regarding Prop 8 were publicized, and both the employees and the customers of Mozilla had a problem with it.  He couldn't change what he'd done in 2008, but he sure could say he'd changed his mind about the worthiness of it.  Your comment basically says that no one can ever learn something and change their mind because of it.  

                            And yes, morality is ever-changing and complex, just like everything else.  Oh, and by the way, that's the opposite of fundamentalism.

        •  You do realize... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          ...that candidates have more positions than a single issue.

    •  It's not a matter of... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, RockyMtnLib

      ..."who gets to decide" and "when."

      We all get to decide where we stand at any given moment, and how we feel about the answer to the question, "Where do you stand now, Mr./Ms. CEO/presidential candidate/next door neighbor/etc?"

      The problem with the "respecting a tradition" r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶i̶z̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶  aspect of opposing marriages of same-sex couples is threefold. The first is the latter's complete lack of impact and effect upon the former.

      The second is each person's freedom to observe - or reject - any "tradition" they choose: no one is compelled to abandon the "tradition" in which they believe; indeed, those hewing to the "social and religious contract among opposite sex couples" point of view continue to follow their own lights without any interference.

      Which leads to the third aspect of that problem: interference itself. "Respecting a tradition" loses all validity when it translates into action preventing others from doing anything that doesn't conform to that "tradition."  

      •  Again (0+ / 0-)

        Are we not entitled to our own private beliefs? When they do not cross any legal lines? That is why I am so uncomfortable about the bums rush on Eich. His position was essentially the same as the Presidential candidate (I presume) you voted for at that time. Indeed a majority of voters in California held that opinion. Why, five years later is it ok to say well you're a bigot you must go- bit others with the same opinion- they get a pass. It is so subjective and arbitrary and I do both think that is "progressive".

        •  In order: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, anon004
          Are we not entitled to our own private beliefs?
          Who says otherwise? Eich's still entitled to his. What "entitles" him to be CEO of Mozilla (or anything else)? Nothing that I know of. He is, however, also still entitled to contribute to any anti-gay/discriminatory ballot initiative he chooses, as well as to bear the responsibility for any consequences occurring in the marketplace for any product or service he represents.
          When they do not cross any legal lines?
          Is Eich being prosecuted for - or been accused of - any crime? Red herring.
          His position was essentially the same as the Presidential candidate

          The position of that candidate:

          "I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman...But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them."

          And I, as were others who voted for him, was aware of that position (and the opposing candidate held an even more rigid one: he supported the proposition).

          ...a majority of voters in California held that opinion.
          7 million out of 17 million registered voters and 22 million eligible ones. And the amendment for which those 7 million voted was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts, including the highest. The election was legal; the proposition was not, so: moot point.

          Now that all the distractions have been cleared away, I ask you this: do you possess the right to discontinue support of any product/service/company employing someone with whose views you strongly disagree, and to communicate that withholding of support to that company?

          Of course you do. That's all that happened here.

          •  My goodness (0+ / 0-)

            we can remove a CEO for having just barely, slightly different, views than the prudent. By all means persecute the guy for that. He IS being persecuted- run out of a position for his legal beliefs. Again I am not up in arms over this, but it is just so, fundie:. "Heretic! He does not believe the same as we do now (although we did too 5 years ago) lets make sure he cannot be a CEO".

            it isn't a red herring, his private views resulted in a hypocritical campaign to remove him as CEo by another CEo.

            The voters who cared enough about the issue to vote made their views known. You got the red herrings there.

            Sure I do, but it doesn't mean I SHOULD.

        •  Again, Eich wasn't just having a private belief. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          He was participating in advocacy to make the government discriminate against a group of people. That's not belief, that's action.

          Why do you ignore that?

          When they do not cross any legal lines?
          What part of the government discriminated against a group of people do you think isn't crossing any legal lines?
    •  Who drew any lines... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StevenWells, anon004

      except perhaps the Mozilla Corporation? If OKCupid decides that Sam Yagan is presenting a PR problem he could be asked to CEO somewhere else just as easily. The CEO isn't just some employee they are the most senior face of the company. The opinions of the guy in cubicle 35482, who pushes emails around for 8 hours a day, aren't generally important enough to rate a company boycott the head of the company is in a unique position in that regard.
      I really don't care if or why someone is opposed to gay marriage unless they are declining one of their own their opinion is worthless. There is no valid reason to be opposed to a marriage between to willing people capable of consent. It is not as though one concept of Marriage has existed for thousands of years and this is the first anyone has tried to alter it in all that time. There are different marriage traditions the world over and they have changed frequently. It is just as bigoted, not to mention unconstitutional, to stop same sex marriages through law as it is to stop mixed race marriages.

      This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

      by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 03:50:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What the flying fuck? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil
      Additionally opposing gay marriage is, in and of itself, not necessarily an anti gay position.
      Yes, it is. It totally is anti-gay. Two dudes getting married in no way impacts anyone except for those two people. There is no other reason to oppose letting them get married other than animus toward them because they're both men. No matter how much homophobes want to pretend that they're not bigots just because they don't call every gay person they meet a faggot doesn't mean that they're not bigots. Regardless of why you want it to be such, if you think the government should discriminate against same-sex couples, you are a bigot.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site