[tomelders]

This is madness. Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being racist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being racist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being sexist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being sexist?

Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being homophobic? Yes. Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being homophobic? No.

Do people lose their jobs for being LGB or T? Yes. Do people lose their jobs for supporting LGBT rights. Yes.

If you think some people have less rights than other people just because of the way they were born, then you're a bad person. He wasn't born a homophobe, he became one, and it's just and right to make assessments of people for the things they chose to do.

[purringmeow]

Who said Eich is a homophobe?

If marriage were a right, why are we denying it to so many groups - not only gays, but polygamists and relatives?

Also, do not equate racism and interracial marriages with homosexual marriages. The former is just a matter of skin color - a black man and a white man are the same. If we go by the racist logic, it would be OK to deny a tanned white man marrying a pale white woman.

Homosexual marriage is a whole other matter and a lot of people don't know where they stand. If you want the public to support your cause, no matter what it is, it would be wise to be positive, firm and unemotional. I am sure the media sh*tstorm that hit B.Eich has affected a number of people and undoubtedly turned some of them away from pro LGBT causes.

[tomelders]

Oh how you're wrong, let me count the way.

Polygamists are entitled to get married. You can't be a polygamist if you're not married. Everyone who has the right to get married has the right to be married to one other person at a time. Polygamists included.

As for relatives, they're free to marry people who are not close blood relatives for solid biological reasons that are well defined and well understood. You strain your argument to the point of ludicrousness to suggest anyone should be ok with close blood relatives marrying. Adopted siblings would be free to get married. A man would be free to marry his adopted mother. As abhorrent as that may sound to any people reading this (adopted or otherwise), the law isn't that you can't marry relatives, it that there are specific kinds of relatives you are not allowed to marry.

Also, do not equate racism and interracial marriages with homosexual marriages. The former is just a matter of skin color - a black man and a white man are the same. If we go by the racist logic, it would be OK to deny a tanned white man marrying a pale white woman.

What on earth are you talking 'bout willis? Are you saying that gay men are different to straight men? Because if that's what you think, then you are, without a shadow of a doubt, a fully qualified homophobe. In fact, you could get a job teaching homophobia at the international college for cunts.

If you want the public to support your cause

I don't care one jot wether the public support it or not. They sure as hell didn't support equal rights for black people. Where would black people in america be now if they had to wait for the white man to acknowledge their rights? This stuff isn't up for debate, this is the way the world is going to be wether you like it or not. If you think the world is waiting for you to say, "it's OK, gay people can have rights, I'll allow it", then you're delusional.

[nailer]

You assume not supporting gay marriage makes someone a homophobe. Fine, but others would disagree.

[tomelders]

It does. You do not get to chose the parameters of what makes a homophobe. The people who suffer at the whim of homophobes make that distinction. Opposition to same sex marriage is 100% homophobic. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. It's prejudice, plain and simple.

[nailer]

From the article you just read:

> For a cynical person, this would be a great way out: “OK, I am not $x, so it is not my problem, you just claimed that I have no right to an opinion as I never experienced the suffering. Done.”

I'm not going to debate you: re-posting your opinion with no supporting arguments means you've obviously made up your mind.

I think it's rubbish that someone can't access their life partner in hospital because they're not married, and support gay marriage based on that idea. But know there's a lot of people who:

- May have grown up with the idea of a bride and groom for most of their lives. Eich is 52.

- May think of marriage as a framework for raising children, and believe children have a right to a mother and father.

- May be closeted homosexuals who find homosexual behaviour confronting

Or a number of other reasons.

You're going to respond to this post with: "no, all those people are homophobes" - like Heilmann wrote about, you're looking for the box to put your angry comment in. I get it, you don't care about any arguments that disagree with your stance, you've concluded your thought process already.

But I'm writing this for our audience, who may put more thought in.

[tomelders]

I'll answer your first two points one go; So what? If their concept is diminished by someone else's interpretation of marriage, then that's their problem, no one else's.

Do christians think jews have no right to worship? Do methodists believe anglicans have no right to worship? Of course not. They all worship the same god, and they all seem to have no problem allowing the other group to have their own definition of what worshiping god means without it diminishing what they believe worshiping god means.

So why does one persons definition of marriage take precedence over someone else's?

I don't know what you're attempting to say with your third point, but then I don't think you've properly thought anything through, as evidenced by your childish gambit of "You can't call me a homophobe because I said you can't".

If you think it's ok to deny same sex couples the opportunity to marry, then you're a homophobe. Regardless of wether you argument against it is in support of some other persons beliefs.

[nailer]

> So why does one persons definition of marriage take precedence over someone else's?

Democracy.

> I don't think you've properly thought anything through, as evidenced by your childish gambit of "You can't call me a homophobe because I said you can't".

Do you genuinely think I said that, or an equivalent, are you trolling, or are you just so angry you want to lash out at someone, like Heilmann mentioned in the article?

I cannot imagine how anyone would call someone in favour of gay marriage a homophobe simply because they can see the other side of the argument. So no, I don't really feel much need to 'defend myself', anybody attacking me from that point of view would obviously not be thinking rationally.

I think you're so angry you didn't even realise I share your stand on the matter.

[tomelders]

Sorry, you're right, you didn't say that. I was on a rant and went too far there. I still believe there's a kernel of truth in what I said though. You do suggest that calling people out for being homophobic isn't a valid argument. I believe it is.

[yummyfajitas]

You do not get to chose the parameters of what makes a homophobe. The people who suffer at the whim of homophobes make that distinction.

Your logic is flawed. Group A defines group B, and group B defines group A. As a result, there is no way to define membership in group A or B.

Opposition to same sex marriage is 100% homophobic. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. It's prejudice, plain and simple.

Does this apply to all acts that don't hurt anyone, yet are not subsidized/supported by the government? Paying below minimum wage? Failing to buy health insurance? Cutting hair without a license? Failing to purchase a home?

Somehow I don't think you actually believe your own argument.

[tomelders]

I don't think you know what logic is for. It has very little bearing in the real world.

[betterunix]

"Do people lose their jobs for supporting LGBT rights. Yes."

Which is as much of a problem as what happened to Brendan Eich.

"If you think some people have less rights than other people just because of the way they were born, then you're a bad person."

Careful with that; all it would take is some new research on sexuality and sexual orientations to completely undermine that point.

[tomelders]

There's no evidence to support the idea that people are "made" homosexual. The only sane assumption to make is "Some people are gay, they're probably born that way."

Some people have more pubic hair than others. We have to wait until puberty before we know which people will have lots of pubic hair and which ones wont. But by your logic, there's some external force that occurs during childhood that will determine how much pubic hair a person will have. You'd be an idiot to think that way.

[ebfe]

Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children. That means one of two things- either there are social factors that influence homosexuality, or there are biological factors that can cause a child to be abused. Most of us consider the former to be more plausible than the latter.

The argument that some traits are influenced by socialization does not imply that all traits are influenced by socialization; your second paragraph is just inane.

[mkr-hn]

Even the perception that you might be gay tends to draw abuse from family and peers. If there's a connection, it doesn't surprise me.

[ebfe]

What would create the perception that a pre-pubescent child is gay? And do you believe that this perception is an accurate predictor of actual homosexuality?

[mkr-hn]

Generally, any deviation from socially enforced gender roles. There are plenty of kids who were abused for it and didn't turn out gay.

[tomelders]

> Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children.

Am I going mad? Is the whole tech community homophobic? That is an outright lie.

The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 1.51% of the population of the US identify as GLBT, whereas other studies put this figure as high as 8%. However, statistics for people abused in childhood are significantly higher that this, with reliable estimates given for child sexual abuse to be 16% for males and 27% for females in the USA (NRCCSA, 1994).

Therefore, if there is a causal link between childhood sexual abuse and identifying as GLBT later in life, then why aren’t the figures for the number of GLBT people in the population reflected by the abuse statistics? There are significantly more cases of sexual abuse than there are people that identify as GLBT (Macmillan, 1997), and furthermore, the vast majority of persons sexually abused as children are heterosexual (Keith, 1991).

In addition to this, virtually all statistics agree that females are more likely to be sexually abused in childhood than males are - and yet, and yet there are proportionally more men that identify as being gay than there are women who identify as lesbian (Hite, 1991; Janus, 1993, Jefferson, 2001).

http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html

[ebfe]

Your link contains nothing to refute the fact that gays are more likely to have been abused (which is true), just the idea that abuse is the singular, causal factor of homosexuality (which nobody is suggesting).

[tomelders]

> gays are more likely to have been abused (which is true)

It is not true. Where the hell are you getting all this nonsense from?