6 ms·

>if he put money on an association like the kkk? Great comparison, it's not like the KKK murdered thousands of people or anything.

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
And thousands of people have been murdered in the name of homophobia. But this isn't really a numbers game; if, in the TWENTY-FIRST century, anyone is murdered, attacked, insulted, or treated in any way differently because of their sexual orientation, that is an outrage.
joshstrange 12y ago
Good point, it's not like members of the LGBT community have ever been beaten and killed for being LGBT.... Oh wait... Yes he didn't donate (directly) to a group that goes around beating and killing homosexuals but it's disingenuous to pretend they (KKK and homophobics) don't have plenty in common. First of which being hate.
- intslack 12y ago
  So. to be clear, you're saying Brendan Eich is a homophobe?
  - joshstrange 12y ago
    Well Debate.org seems to agree with what I think you are trying to say which is "being against gay marriage does not make you a homophobe"[0], of course Slate would disagree with you [1], and The Atlantic would agree with you [2]. I could go on but I won't, I'll just tell you what I think: yes, It does. And yes, he was a homophobe, by giving to a group of people trying to destroy human rights for homosexuals. I think people can change but the complete lack of response on that specific issue from Brendan Eich makes me assume he still is. [0] http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-opposing-same-sex-marriage-make-you-a-homophobe http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-opposing-same-sex-marria... [1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/12/16/gay_marriage_opponents_homophobic_does_opposing_gay_marriage_make_you_a.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/12/16/gay_marriage_o... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/being-against-gay-marriage-doesnt-make-you-a-homophobe/282333/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/being-ag...
rsynnott 12y ago
Okay, let's go with a more direct comparison. Say he funds the campaign for a successful constitutional referendum banning interracial marriage. Do you honestly think he'd be able to stay as CEO in that case?
- intslack 12y ago
  That direct comparison doesn't work either: The herd mentality in religious circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages. This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. Bans on interracial marriages, on the other hand, are just justified by racism and not objective facts. Eich is ignorant, but I'm pretty sure he's not a bigot. http://www.benmoskowitz.com/?p=971 http://www.benmoskowitz.com/?p=971
  - rsynnott 12y ago
    You're aware that the religious argument, and the IT WILL DESTOY SOCIETY argument, and the "unsuitable for raising children" arguments were all used in the context of interracial marriage in the US in the 60s, right? Incidentally, the idea that marriage has long social and cultural roots is also kind of dubious. If you look at marriage in 1800, it's essentially an entirely different arrangement to marriage today; notably, it lead to effective legal erasure of the wife as a person.
    - intslack 12y ago
      You don't seem to understand: they can be rational and maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together biologically, two people of the same sex, can’t be a marriage. It's ignorant, places way too much emphasis on sex rather than committment and love, and is justified by stupid ideas like marriage being "reserved" for heterosexual couples for the purpose of procreation, but it's rational. It also leads to seperate but equal legal frameworks, which are bullshit. Bans on interracial marriage were irrational, not relying on a single objective fact. What I would like: abolish state-recognized marriages altogether. Civil partnerships for everyone, let churches squabble about marriage if someone wants a ceremony, and they can enter into a partnership for benefits. What's practical: modifying our legal framework for marriage across the states.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Eich is literally Hitler. He even has a pretty German-sounding name. Heil Eich?

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago

And thousands of people have been murdered in the name of homophobia. But this isn't really a numbers game; if, in the TWENTY-FIRST century, anyone is murdered, attacked, insulted, or treated in any way differently because of their sexual orientation, that is an outrage.

joshstrange 12y ago

Good point, it's not like members of the LGBT community have ever been beaten and killed for being LGBT.... Oh wait... Yes he didn't donate (directly) to a group that goes around beating and killing homosexuals but it's disingenuous to pretend they (KKK and homophobics) don't have plenty in common. First of which being hate.

intslack 12y ago
So. to be clear, you're saying Brendan Eich is a homophobe?
- joshstrange 12y ago
  Well Debate.org seems to agree with what I think you are trying to say which is "being against gay marriage does not make you a homophobe"[0], of course Slate would disagree with you [1], and The Atlantic would agree with you [2]. I could go on but I won't, I'll just tell you what I think: yes, It does. And yes, he was a homophobe, by giving to a group of people trying to destroy human rights for homosexuals. I think people can change but the complete lack of response on that specific issue from Brendan Eich makes me assume he still is. [0] http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-opposing-same-sex-marriage-make-you-a-homophobe http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-opposing-same-sex-marria... [1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/12/16/gay_marriage_opponents_homophobic_does_opposing_gay_marriage_make_you_a.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/12/16/gay_marriage_o... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/being-against-gay-marriage-doesnt-make-you-a-homophobe/282333/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/being-ag...

rsynnott 12y ago

Okay, let's go with a more direct comparison. Say he funds the campaign for a successful constitutional referendum banning interracial marriage. Do you honestly think he'd be able to stay as CEO in that case?

intslack 12y ago
That direct comparison doesn't work either: The herd mentality in religious circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages. This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. Bans on interracial marriages, on the other hand, are just justified by racism and not objective facts. Eich is ignorant, but I'm pretty sure he's not a bigot. http://www.benmoskowitz.com/?p=971 http://www.benmoskowitz.com/?p=971
- rsynnott 12y ago
  You're aware that the religious argument, and the IT WILL DESTOY SOCIETY argument, and the "unsuitable for raising children" arguments were all used in the context of interracial marriage in the US in the 60s, right? Incidentally, the idea that marriage has long social and cultural roots is also kind of dubious. If you look at marriage in 1800, it's essentially an entirely different arrangement to marriage today; notably, it lead to effective legal erasure of the wife as a person.
  - intslack 12y ago
    You don't seem to understand: they can be rational and maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together biologically, two people of the same sex, can’t be a marriage. It's ignorant, places way too much emphasis on sex rather than committment and love, and is justified by stupid ideas like marriage being "reserved" for heterosexual couples for the purpose of procreation, but it's rational. It also leads to seperate but equal legal frameworks, which are bullshit. Bans on interracial marriage were irrational, not relying on a single objective fact. What I would like: abolish state-recognized marriages altogether. Civil partnerships for everyone, let churches squabble about marriage if someone wants a ceremony, and they can enter into a partnership for benefits. What's practical: modifying our legal framework for marriage across the states.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Eich is literally Hitler. He even has a pretty German-sounding name. Heil Eich?