[kazoolist]

For a probably-different point of view on this -

I'm a person of faith, who takes his faith seriously, and who's faith teaches that homosexual conduct is immoral. I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).

Given my faith, advocacy like this from Google, Apple, and other prominent tech companies really put me in a bind.

Their products have become such fixtures in my day to day life that I'm not sure how to get by without them, but by using their products and providing these companies with revenue, I feel like I'm contributing to a fund for someone to publicly proclaim: "You're faith is a sham; your God irrelevant; and, by the way, we think you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot".

I wish Apple, Google, etc. would all just focus on making insanely great products and not jump into the fray of divisive-by-definition social issues.

And, no, I'm not a "homophobe" or "bigot". I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay.

[potatolicious]

> " I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay."

And how does that in any way conflict with the support of gay rights?

The legalization of gay marriage in no way denies your right to morally condemn their behavior. It simply removes your ability to actively harm their lives by continuously denying them equality.

You do not have to approve of someone's behavior in order to support their right to do it.

In other words, your very claim that you are not homophobic, and that you would readily come to the aid of persecuted gay folk, should mean that Google's move is not objectionable. After all, Google is not trying to ban browbeating, but merely to assert the right for people to do as they wish, moral or otherwise.

[Tichy]

So if somebody is pro gay marriage, they are telling you "you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot", but if you are against gay marriage, you are "merely thinking their behavior is immoral". I think your self evaluation could be improved.

I find it surprising (but cool) that Google takes a stand on a controversial issue here.

Think about it another way: if Google doesn't take a stand on other human rights issues, there is a huge scandal. For example if they were to reveal information about Chinese activists to the Chinese government. So why shouldn't they be expected to take a stand regarding other human rights issues, too?

[fingerprinter]

I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).

I'm an agnostic atheist. At some point in my past I identified as "christian". At no point did I think gay marriage should be illegal nor did I think that gays were immoral.

Further, civil rights, interracial marriage (mine, for instance) and various other issues were deemed "socially unacceptable" by the majority of people in the US at some point in time. It wasn't majority voting that gave women the right to vote, removed segregation and created equal rights for all. It was a minority of people recognizing that this way of thinking was antiquated, crude and reprehensible.

The issue today is gay marriage and it falls in the same category as the above. Imagine looking back 50 years from now and seeing yourself on the complete wrong side of the debate. How stupid, and hopefully shameful, you'll feel.

BTW...I'm thankful the US is not a true democracy when I see what opinions the majority tend to hold. I am glad the leaders are not bound to do exactly as their constituents "want". As we as a human race advance in our thinking, some quicker than others, we need to shed the vestigial dogmas of our past...all of them.

[gjm11]

See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/06/11/you-cant... for some commentary on pretty much exactly your position, from a Christian who doesn't oppose same-sex marriage.

Basic point #1: If forbidding people to marry others of the same sex is unkind, unjust, or whatever, then it doesn't become any less so when the person doing it says "my religion told me to do it".

Basic point #2: If forbidding people to marry others of the same sex is unkind, unjust, or whatever, then those who campaign against the prohibition don't need to -- and generally don't -- do it on the basis that the people on the other side are homophobes and bigots. This isn't about the character of the opponents of same-sex marriage, it's about their actions, and if your actions are unkind, unjust, etc., then once again they really don't become any less so merely because you're a nice person underneath.

[icebraining]

a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).

Please don't confuse calling oneself Christian (or anything else) to advocating their Church's beliefs. Where I live, the people who describe themselves as Catholics (which is obviously much more specific than Christian) are 95% for using contraception, and more than 50% are pro-choice in both pregnancy interruption and euthanasia.

[sjwright]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always found the notion of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof) to seem hollow and meaningless compared to the joy of evidence, humility from understanding the size and time of the known universe, and the fortitude to accept that some questions have no answers.

At some point in the future, science will probably identify the origin of homosexuality. (Given its prevalence in nature, consistent trigger rates, and the seemingly smooth continuum between hetero and homo, it's likely to run deep within our genetic makeup.) So if physical evidence is found for homosexuality, should your faith reconsider what it means to be "made in god's image"?

[corin_]

If your view is that homosexuality is immoral, and you don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals, then I'm afraid you are homophobic. You may be the best kind of homophobic, but homophobic none the less.

[swah]

If homossexuals had the rights without calling it marriage, I think he (parent poster) would be all right with it.

[corin_]

You can be homophobic without opposing gay marriage (regardless of if you use "marriage" as the word), just like you can be racist without thinking black people shouldn't be allowed to get married. It's about attitude, not actions - the fact that he isn't trying to force his homophobia on others is what makes him the better kind of homophobe.

[swah]

Well, perhaps the word doesn't carry the same negative weight that it does in portuguese. Here if you tell me someone is an homophobe, I imagine people that want to beat all homossexuals passing in the streets.

[nhangen]

IMO there is a difference between prejudice and racist/homophobe.

[jules]

I'm not racist, but I don't think blacks should be able to marry. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I have friends who are black. I'm not racist! I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is black.