Skip to main content

View Diary: Brendan Eich and Tolerance (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site