Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
from the i-guess-they'll-unfriend-mozilla dept.
The controversy around Mozilla's new CEO Brendan Eich continues. Eich made a personal $1000 donation to California's Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in 2008. Now, dating site OkCupid has started redirecting Firefox users to a page explaining Eich's views against marriage equality, and asking users to switch to IE, Chrome, or Opera.
If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
Visitors are then provided links to alternative browsers, or they can continue to the site by clicking a hyperlink at the bottom of the page.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by NullPtr on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:59AM
I'm guessing, given the content of his message, that they're impressed that people are standing up to ignorant bigotry based presumably on outdated, entirely fictional belief systems.
(Score: 3, Informative) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:38AM
There are secular arguments against gay marriage.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-secul ar-arguments-against-gay-marriage [debate.org]
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:16AM
Secular vs religious arguments against gay marriage is a meaningless distinction. The argument being "secular" gives it no more credence. Atheists are quite capable of being narrow minded and intolerant of others. I read the arguments on the page you link to and they sound no different to what the Christian right spout.
Another reason why the distinction is meaningless is that religions are invented by people and have whatever properties their adherents choose to give them. There's no rule of the universe saying that religions have to be against homosexuality. There's tons of stuff in the Bible which Christians ignore because they choose to do so. They don't avoid pork and shell fish, for instance, which their book tells them not to eat in Leviticus 11. Mark 10 says divorce==adultery and it shouldn't be done, yet divorce in the US is higher than it's every been and the US is a predominantly Christian country. So in any case Christians pick and choose what to believe based on convenience and fancy. There's nothing whatsoever stopping them from applying this selectivity to not obstructing equal rights for gay people. But choose to obstruct because they're narrow-minded and intolerant, just like the secular people on that webpage.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:01AM
I only mentioned it because the parent post referred to "...ignorant bigotry based presumably on outdated, entirely fictional belief systems", which I equated to religion.
Just for the record, I believe that marriage is a legal institution carried out by two or more consenting adults. I don't care what sexes or sexual orientations are involved. Hell, I don't even care what species are involved, as long as it can be shown that all prospective partners are capable of abstract thought and can be shown to understand what a marriage is and that it's what they all want. (I still have childhood fantasies of one day getting married to at least one, hot, green-skinned and/or green-blooded woman -- or women -- from other planets. Ignore for the moment that I am already married to a mere Earthling.)
However, for the sake of argument, let's just suppose that there could be logical, rational beliefs to support the idea of marriage being defined as a legal union between one man and one woman. I think the following might qualify.
Argument for Traditional Definition of Marriage
Wow, that was difficult to write. Personally, I disagree with most of it... but I can see why some people would hold this view.
Now, someone please provide the counter-argument!
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:39AM
Ha, today's inspiration from /usr/games/fortune...
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hatta on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:27AM
False, because a very many couples have children outside of marriage, and very many have marriages without children.
"A" means perhaps, but by no means the only means, or even the best means.
Empirically false. Children of same sex couples suffer no disadvantages compared to married couples, save for the bigotry they face.
Except that the "traditional" nuclear family was a 20th century invention. People have been living together and raising families in more ways than I can count for as long as humanity has existed. In particular, the idea of marrying for love was radical in the 19th century.
Even if we assumed that everything you wrote above was true, which it's not, nothing you have said justifies this. What you need to prove is not that "traditional" marriage is better than same-sex marriage. You need to prove that unwed same-sex couples are better than married same-sex couples.
You are arguing as if "traditional" marriage is an alternative to same-sex marriage. It is not.
The one true statement in this argument. However it has nothing to do with proving your thesis. In fact, that marriage provides so many rights and privileges makes marriage equality even more important.
Non-sequitur. Even if I assume everything above this statement to be true, you still haven't proven this. What actual undesirable consequences should we expect to come from same-sex marriage? Nothing in your argument speaks to this.
So, I suppose there's a secular argument against same-sex marriage. That is, if you consider lies, fallacies, and non-sequiturs to compose an argument. Might as well say that there's a secular argument that the moon is made of cheese.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:27PM
One thing I should note before I get into the reply: I am assuming the US here, as it's what I know the best. Some of it may or may not apply to other countries or societies.
Couples choosing to have children outside of marriage doesn't disprove the original statement.
The trend for childless marriages (in the US) has been increasing every decade since the 50s, but the relative percentages are still in the minority. This doesn't disprove the original statement. (Note: this second part about childless marriages is definitely open to debate, as this is not a subject I've ever researched seriously. A quick web search for "trends in childless marriage America" will pull up many sources, and I've only looked at a few of them.)
Okay, so you agree with this part (because I never said "best").
This is probably the biggest hole in the original argument. However, there seems to be enough conflicting data out there that some may feel justified in choosing the argument they prefer, rather than the one that has the most scientific support. This is one reason I included the parenthetical comment "arguably" in the statement. (Keep in mind that I don't actually believe the statement; I am trying to put myself in the mindset of someone that does.)
I didn't say "nuclear family". You did. I include "extended family" in the "traditional" category. This goes back much further than the 20th century, and by and large, homosexual relationships were not openly acknowledged. The "traditional" family dynamic, which has hundreds of years of history behind it (from Europe to America), is therefore better understood.
I am not arguing that "traditional" marriage is an alternative to same-sex marriage. I am arguing (for the sake of exploring the argument) that there is no justification to call a same-sex union a "marriage". As evidence, I stated several things above, some of which *are* true and some of which can be supported in an argument but that will be difficult to refute outright. Also, given the point of view that I am arguing from, I don't think I need to "prove" any of the things you said that I need to prove; the burden of proof falls to the supporter of alternative marriage types in US society, given that what they propose to change is US/state law regarding the definition and legal treatment of marriage.
You agree with the statement, but disagree that it has anything to do with the argument. However, I believe you are mistaken here because the argument started with a proposal to change current laws that deal specifically with those "additional characteristics, rights, and privileges". Rightly or wrongly, they already exist. Prove to me that the proposal to change those laws to promote "marriage equality" is the right thing for society to do. (I think the best argument here might be based on fundamental human rights; it's why my actual opinion is so at odds with the persona I've adopted for this discussion.)
Again, the burden of proof is on those wanting to change the laws. However, I agree that a good argument against allowing same-sex marriages should probably include some details as to why they would be less desirable than traditional marriages. As it reads now, the argument I've put forth comes across as "change is bad". I'll have to think about it.
The conclusion may be a fallacy, and the argument itself may be imperfect, but it is not based on lies. It is, however, based on a particular "spin" for facts and opinions that can be backed up with some kind of evidence. Whether that evidence outweighs any evidence to the contrary is an open question. As for the "moon is made of cheese" comment, I'll just say that I know that to be false; the moon is actually made of heartbreak, tears, and broken dreams.
And again, one final time: I am not against same-sex marriage. The argument I proposed is for discussion purposes only.
(Score: 1) by hatta on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:36PM
You are putting forth traditional marriage the best way to raise children, and using that as a reason not to allow same-sex couples to get married. If you don't think same-sex marriage is going to prevent traditional couples from marrying and having children, how exactly does that argument work?
Like I said, even if those things above are true, I don't actually see an argument here against same-sex marriage. I'm even willing to allow for the sake of argument that heteronormative couples produce happier and healthier offspring. Why does that matter to a gay couple in love?
The burden of proof as to whether same-sex couples should get married falls solely on those couples, and they are the sole judge as to whether that burden has been met. I don't get a say in whether you get married, you don't get a say in whether I get married, unless we're marrying each other. In which case we're the only people who get a say.
Right, the only way to even come close to making a secular argument against same-sex marriage is to ignore fundamental principles like equal protection under the law. In other words, there is actually no honest, informed, and well-meaning argument against same-sex marriage. Every opponent of same-sex marriage is either disingenuous, ignorant, or malicious. Just like every opponent of interracial marriage.
No, a good argument against same-sex marriage would include details as to why they would be less desirable than unwed same-sex couples. Traditional marriage is not an option for unwed same-sex couples, so it's entirely irrelevant.
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:28PM
I didn't mean to say that allowing same-sex marriage would prevent traditional couples from marrying and having children, just as I wasn't saying "traditional" marriage is an alternative for people that would rather be in same-sex marriages. The argument is implying that homosexually-oriented people shouldn't marry or have kids at all, whether that's in a same-sex relationship with someone they love or a traditional marriage with someone they just like or tolerate.
Okay, persona off for now: that particular implication is really bothering me. I'm not sure I meant to say that, so now I don't know if I'm just seeing something that arose incidentally, or if it's something that my subconscious inserted while I was playing the role. I think it was incidental, but it bothers me that it might not be.
I have to think about it. I'll get back to this in a while. (Sorry)
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1) by tomtomtom on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:19PM
Much as we'd all love to live in a world where children didn't get teased, bullied or worse because of their family background, this seems like wishful thinking to me. It also seems like wishful thinking to believe that even the subset which is down to some children having parents in a same sex relationship will go away any time soon. Therefore it's rather disingenuous to brush off what could be quite a serious problem for a child so lightly - you need to start with the world as it is, not as you would like it to be.
None of that is to say that government should act to prevent children being brought up in such situations (we don't do that for example for children of poor families or children with ginger hair or any of the many other things children get abused and bullied for). Just that you've said something which is akin to "all sheep are white (apart from the ones that aren't)".
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:21AM
And they are just as wrong....
Most of them focus on some twisted idea of what is 'natural'.
Appearantly a mariage is nothing more than producing offspring like rabbits.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:03AM
Which would put vasectomies, tubiligations(sp?), and any nonprocreating couple in the same category as gay marriage.
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:15AM
Not necessarily. Societally (at least in the US), while married couples with kids get more benefits (e.g., tax breaks) than married couples without kids, they still serve as examples of what "society" deems to be "normal" and "beneficial" and "desirable".
(And please keep in mind that these are not my beliefs. I'm making these arguments as a contrarian. Some might consider it trolling or flamebait, but my intent is to promote critical thought and discussion.)
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:06AM
Most of them... but not all of them. Don't tell me you couldn't any arguments there that weren't somewhat rational. Disagreement is not a valid justification for outright dismissal.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 2) by snick on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:48AM
Oh that's rich.
Many of the "reasons" are statements that people who are ostracized by society tend to lead unhealthy lives.
No shit sherlock.
The question isn't whether homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV or have substance abuse problems than straight men, but whether MARRIED homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and have substance abuse problems than MARRIED straight men.
What's that ????
crickets.
I thought so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:20AM
That might be the question that you see. The question that I see is completely different: what definition of marriage (if any) should society choose to promote and reward with legal and/or economic incentives?
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1) by ArhcAngel on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:07AM
Since the incentives were created to foster an economic condition in which the wife could support the family by staying home and rearing children thus providing them with a stable environment in which to grow perhaps repealing these incentives for families where both parents work is the actual fair thing to do. In the US people are free to pursue the relationship of their liking (certain age restrictions apply). What is being lobbied for/against is the extension of entitlements to same-sex partners. I say take away the entitlements completely since the reason they were created (1 wage earner households) is mostly a thing of the past. Have the entitlements extend only to households where the annual income is 20% below the median average annual income (or 15% or 30% I just used 20% as a possible threshold). Once you take emotion and prejudice out of the equation it is easier to craft a tenable solution. I just don't see anybody on either side willing to do that.
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:29AM
Good points. Do you include dependent/child tax benefits in that strategy? Also, I wonder if eliminating the marriage tax benefits would also require the amendment of welfare laws; we don't necessarily want to create a disincentive to marriage for those with kids. Some may reason that being an unemployed single parent is better than being married, especially if the other parent is still around and able to provide income.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1) by velex on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:03PM
Easy. Nullify any marriages that don't involve a pregnancy within 6 months, and nullify any marriages upon death of the children (abortion, accidental, disease, etc). Enforce marriages between individuals who have genetic offspring under the age of 18, even if that results in one person being married to several other people. There, everyone's happy, even the feminists since my proposal would enable lesbian-only marriages as long as that procedure to put the genetic material from an egg into a sperm is performed. (Tho MRAs might not be too happy when stupid guys "help" a lesbian couple have a child under my proposal since that would constitute a marriage that excludes the other lesbian partner and enforces it on the idiot guy.)
Err... I don't think too many folks will be ok with that. But that's ok. I forget who here has a sig to the effect of "you can't rationally argue someone out of a position they didn't rationally get into," but that applies.
A more serious answer would be that I don't think society should reward any kind of interpersonal relationship legally or economically. Get the government out of the marriage business. Maybe churches could reward individuals in marriages they recognize, but then that's their business and none of mine at that point.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:49PM
what definition of marriage (if any) should society choose to promote and reward with legal and/or economic incentives?
I vote for none at all. Why should a childless married couple pay less in tax than a widow with a child who earns the same amount of money?
Why are we discriminating against single people? Governments should stay out of marriage and sex and family life.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:58PM
This is insightful. Now spin it another way.
.
How is that fair?
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:09PM
I agree with this, mostly. I do think that anyone that wants to be able to designate visitation rights in the hospital (for example) should be able to choose anybody, for pretty much any reason.
From what I've heard, if you are not blood related and immediate family (or adopted), you have to be married to get these benefits. This is where the government needs to step in and define it so that a person's wishes must be honored with no preference for majority or minority lifestyle.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:36AM
From what I've heard, if you are not blood related and immediate family (or adopted), you have to be married to get these benefits.
It probably varies depending on where you are, depending on your state or country's laws. I lived with a woman I thought was divorced who died of cancer a few years ago. She went in the hospital and never came out. That's when I found out she was married, her husband came trying to get her to sign divorce papers after refusing a divorce for two years so the abusive SOB wouldn't have to pay the hospital for the cancer. The hospital barred him from the premises, I could visit any time I wanted, even after she'd slipped into a coma. That's Illinois, across a state line or maybe even a different hospital it might be different.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:45PM
Many of the "reasons" are statements that people who are ostracized by society tend to lead unhealthy lives.
So? People smoke, drink too much, sit on their fat asses all day. It's no more my problem than homosexuality is. It's simply none of my business. Christians who judge others should rather look at their own sins instead of anyone else's.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by GeminiDomino on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:26PM
There don't seem to be any that hold up. They all seem to boil down to the "fact" that "the purpose of marriage is to create children" or somesuch.
Except that's obviously not true (plenty of kids to unmarried parents, plenty of hetero married couples with no kids), so once you discard that... nope, we're back to none.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:42PM
The argument that there are plenty of kids to unmarried parents doesn't disprove the assertion that the purpose of marriage is to create children; one does not preclude the other.
The argument that there are plenty of hetero married couples with no kids doesn't disprove (completely) the assertion either. Childless marriages are still in the minority, and not too long ago (in societal terms), they were very uncommon. One could also say that couples that marry, but don't have children, don't receive all the same legal/tax benefits that families-with-kids receive.
I'm not picking on you in particular, but there are a lot of people here that seem willing to dismiss the argument against same-sex marriage with very little critical consideration of what supports that argument. That's why I've posted such an argument (and a very long reply to someone else) about this in another part of the thread.
If I'm going to refute the "anti-gay-marriage" argument, like I intend to do with anybody that brings it up around me, I want to be able to do so from the position of understanding their argument (having taken it seriously).
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:13PM
It proves that kids happen either way, as opposed to marriage, then kids.
Yes, it does. There are no prerequisites to marriage that are based on fertility. There is no objection, for example, to a post-menopausal woman getting married.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:52PM
The purpose of frying pans is to act as a vessel for cooking food. (It may not be the only purpose, but it is the main purpose, and the reason it came into being in the first place.)
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:00PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:35PM
"Marriage's primary purpose is procreating and raising children" is to "married couples sometimes don't have children" as "Frying pans are for cooking food" is to:
(a) "Frying pans are sometimes just hung for decorative purposes", or
(b) "Frying pans might melt when exposed to flame"
What's your answer?
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:06PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:07PM
Alright, to recap:
The assertion I posited is that "the purpose of marriage is to create children", and that the existence of marriages without children doesn't disprove that assertion. You then claimed that it does disprove the assertion because fertility is not a prerequisite for marriage, and gave the example of post-menopausal women getting married. While I happen to agree with you, I still don't think you've managed to fully refute the original assertion in a convincing manner.
Unmarried people can have children, and married people can choose to forgo having children. Unmarried people can live together without having children, and married people can live apart even if they have children (I'm including separated/divorced parents in this). None of those conditions disprove the assertion that, by and large, the primary reason that the institution of marriage exists in American society is procreation and child-rearing.
I'm not saying this assertion is completely accurate, but I am saying that it represents a very common viewpoint. You can try to refute it, but it's very difficult to do so in a manner that would change someone's mind. Trust me, I've tried; my Dad can be the most logical, dispassionate, areligious son-of-a-bitch in the world, and we agree about many things, but I don't think I'll ever be able to dislodge him from this particular position. I was hoping that somebody here would be able to give me the winning counter-argument, but I haven't seen it yet. In fact, I've tried many of the ones that have been posted here, but none have worked.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:19PM
The assertion hasn't been proven either. Since they do wish to block gay marriage, but do not wish to block marriage to an infertile couple, your rationale doesn't work.
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:26PM
Hmm. Guess I sort of forgot the particulars of this case along the way; I was thinking of the more common case in which same-sex marriages are not yet legal and the legal motion is by those wishing to allow it.
Arg.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:33PM
Slashdolt logic: 1600 x 1200 > 1920 x 1200
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:01AM
Fact of the matter is that frying pans can both be hung for decorative purposes, cooked on, and melted over a sufficiently hot flame. My cast iron pan will be glowing orange hot after just a couple minutes on a campfire, and I could certainly make a fire hot enough to melt it.
(Score: 1) by blackest_k on Wednesday April 02 2014, @01:45AM
There is a whole bunch of things that marriage gives that just cohabiting does not.
If you ever watch judge judy you might notice that a married couple who split up get a much better hearing than a couple who lived together. Thats because there is law in place to give the married couple rights in the case of divorce and nothing in the case of unmarried couples splitting up.
As a married man my wife qualifies for a widows pension if I die, as a divorced man she doesn't and nor does my girlfriend no matter how long we have been together. As a single man under the eyes of the law only my blood relatives have a claim on my property by default and even without blood relatives, the state has a better claim on my property than does my girlfriend.
That institution of marriage does give some stability and weight to the relationship between a husband and wife. There are not the same protections for boy and girlfriend.
That legal framework does not depend on a married couple having children.
Over all it is a pretty good system, nobody is arguing that just because you are dating somebody that if you happen to die that your girlfriend/s at the time should get your pension rights.
Same sex couples can make the same commitment to each other as heterosexual couples and it is a good thing to recognise this in law and in marriage.