What's so fundamental about marriage?

I don't think childless couples (of any gender) should get any societal advantages yet I have no problem working with people that disagree. Why has everything to be black-or-white, left-or-right, with us or against us? That's not a productive way to think about others.

It has to be us vs against us because that's what law is all about -- outlawing certain actions.

It's one thing to believe as you do, it's quite another to push for legislation that would (in your example) deny childless couples societal advantages, whatever that actually means.

If you're not in favor of a-or-b arguments the answer is to allow a and b, eh?

In a liberal context, marriage means nothing except for being a symbol of a union between two people. But all rules, obligations and rights that make marriage a meaningful institution are rooted in religion, and are hence not always respected outside of religion.

You could argue that there are laws that only apply to married couples, and that brings meaning to marriage. Firstly, generally speaking, things we associate with marriage culturally are mostly not protected by law, most notably: fidelity. Secondly, to my limited knowledge, the line between a married couple and two people living together is increasingly getting blurred by laws that apply marriage legal obligations even to non-married couples if they have lived together for long enough.

So you're also against Atheist Marriage, then?

Of course not.

If there's nothing fundamental about marriage and it's just some weird coliving arrangement, then why ban it for only some groups in the first place? Nothing productive or even rational about it.

Why is the reaction seen as irrational or immature but not the action that triggered it?

> Why is the reaction seen as irrational or immature but not the action that triggered it?

The analogous (but with an opposite direction) action would be campaigning to make gay marriage legal. Nobody has a problem with people doing that. The reason people object to Eich's firing is because it is a very clear escalation in the culture war, not because they have strong opinions about gay marriage.

For one, being childless is a choice (mostly, especially since adoption is a possibility). It's indeed OK to have different opinions for what how laws apply differently to people based on their choices. Being gay is not a choice, it is rather similar to race/ethnic background, and it's generally not OK to have laws that treat people differently based on something like that. I'm sure there are more nuances to add, but it seems to me that makes it quite a different situation.

I don't think everyone agrees that being gay is not a choice. There are no outward physical indicators of a person's sexual orientation. It's entirely behavorial and therefore plausibly under the conscious control of the person. Now, I would agree that a person doesn't choose which gender he is attracted to, but it not something than anyone else can see and immediately understand as an inborn characteristic.

Clearly being black, or hispanic, or asian, or white are physical characteristics. Far fewer people would argue that there is any element of choice in that.

This is the craziest example of “if I can’t see it, it [might not] exist” I have ever witnessed.

It doesn't even matter if being gay is a choice or not. PEOPLE STILL DESERVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE WHO THEY MARRY. It's basic human rights.

What unjust "advantages" do you think childless couples get that you would want to get rid?

Pretty much all of the legal benefits of marriage are contractual, not financial, and come at no cost to the public.

Things like spousal medical rights, a joint estate, etc don't come at the expense of anybody else.

Taxes would be a big one. There are substantial tax benefits to being married.

The tax benefits are sorta oversold.

The main benefits are tax free gifts between partners and filing jointly, both of which seem very reasonable and wouldn't be of value to single people.

The actual tax breaks most people think about are tied to dependents in your household, not marriage.

No, there aren’t. In fact, there was a tax penalty for being married until 2017 TCJA.

Your thinking applies equally to all people. His donation tries to take away a right from a minority group. They're quite different.

If you think for a moment, you'll realise that it's irrelevant whether marriage is important to you - it's important to many.

So when a person wishes to deny this important institution to a minority, they are creating an out-group and discriminating against them.

By that logic, we can put those discriminators themselves in an out-group and discriminate against them. We can deny them institutions such as directorships. Fair's fair.

It's more than fair - despite what conversion camps want to sell, being queer is an intransigent characteristic. Being a bully is just a choice. Discriminating against bullies is as morally just as discriminating against the incompetent.

Obviously it's fine to campaign against marriage.

> It's not really possible to do that when the opposing beliefs are so fundamental.

Sure it is. I've lived and worked in the Middle East and in China. People do it all the time.

Ive worked with Catholics and my views on sola scriptura and the authority of the Pope never came up once. Ive worked with Muslims, and it was never an issue. Ive worked with Hindus. Ive worked with Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Nigerians, Brazilians, Kenyans, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Ghanans, Mexicans, and many other nationalities. I have been on many teams and in my companies with a combinatorial explosion of fundamentally incompatible beliefs.

So yes I do expect staff to work under a ceo that is opposed to gay marriage, an idea that I would bet globally has a less than 50% popular support.

Have you donated to anti-Muslim, anti-Christian etc. platforms in a public fashion while working with them? Because you would've found quite quickly how that changes the interactions.

I don't mind working with someone who has incompatible views with me, but I'd be quite unhappy working with someone who was actively working on undermining my rights.

That depends. I have donated to Religious missionary work publicly, that could be seen by an extremist of any other religion who sees this as a zero sum game as anti their religion. But I don't bring this up in work because that is uncouth and not what my job is about, and would expect the same from co-workers. Eich also didn't donate publicly, this was dug up and then foisted upon him. If someone were to dig through records they could find my donations and party affiliations, which is what they did to him. He was being professional, they were the ones that were taking his private views and forcing them into the public sphere.

> taking his private views and forcing them into the public sphere

Donations in an effort to change the law are fundamentally a public action, whether or not the government requires the fact of your donation to be publicly disclosed. Seeking to use the law to hurt people is not a private view.

It's basic tolerance, it's not that hard. You do your job and collect your paycheck at the end of the week, same as everyone else.

>It's basic tolerance, it's not that hard.

That's right. To get a bit philosophical, it's interesting to see some people's justifications about how they are right to be intolerant in the ways they want to be, while still believing that they are free-thinking and tolerant. A lot of convoluted arguments are really about keeping one's self-image intact, justifying beliefs that are contradictory but which the person really wants to believe. I think that is a trap that is more dangerous for intelligent people.

For what it's worth, I support and supported gay marriage at the time, but don't think people should be forced out of their job for believing otherwise. Thoughts and words you disagree with should be met with alternative thoughts and words.

Could you summarize this into an argument of your own?

"I want to discriminate against others but still claim to be righteous."

Bad-faith putting words into my mouth. Take that shit elsewhere please.

That's kinda my point, this was already argued like 80 years ago.

> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

And how many Mozilla were fired while the CEO increased her pay to more than $7M per year?

How can staff members feel trust and been seen as equals when they get fired to make place for someone that is already earning 70x their wage. All while tanking the company to new lows.