
How Rare Are Anti-Gay-Marriage Donations in Silicon Valley? - Thrymr
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-rare-are-anti-gay-marriage-donations-in-silicon-valley/
======
bargl
My parents own a small business and are personally against Gay Marriage. I
admit that hoping that my privacy will be respected enough that no one will
try to find them and harass them because of this... They are generally good
people who are sometimes misguided in their thoughts. However, they don't let
that creep into their business and have the utmost respect for people in
general. Yes, even Gay people. Just because they believe that Homosexuality is
wrong doesn't mean that they are opposed to people who are gay.

I'd be devastated if their business suffered because of their personal
viewpoints. The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone
who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them. Let's be
rational here and let people live with their beliefs, and lets not persecute
people for their beliefs because of a time/culture/religion they were born
into or the sexual orientation they were born with.

EDIT: Just because you are opposed to someone getting married doesn't mean you
hate that group. People who have that viewpoint frequently believe that
homosexuality will degrade the morality of society. Yes, they are wrong and
misguided, but they aren't ALL hateful.

~~~
drhayes9
This is pretty clearly a "right to swing your fist ends at my nose" situation.
If your parents aren't attempting to limit homosexuals' ability to live as
equals with non-homosexual humans then, yes, they shouldn't be persecuted for
their beliefs. However, if they donate to political causes that are anti-gay-
marriage, or march in support of those who do, or sign petitions asking for
the right to marry to be repealed...

If you're uncomfortable with associating the word "hate" with "against gay
marriage", consider what opponents of gay marriage are trying to stop:

* A person easily being able to be present at the deathbed of their lifetime partner.

* Joint custody of children.

* Tax breaks.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Well, no. That's not what people who are against gay marriage are trying to
stop.

Those are all different issues, and you'll find different percentages of
people for and against each of them. Lowest against the deathbed issue,
highest on the child custody issue, for example. Then the concept of
redefining the term "marriage", which is yet another different issue.

Conflating all these issues is not helpful in the discussion. People's
feelings on these topics are complex, and you really have to talk about it
with that complexity to have any meaningful insight.

~~~
cube_yellow
Here's the full list of the issues, for those interested:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)

------
ltcoleman
Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is
starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an
individual's freedom of speech/thought. The Brendan Eich controversy
highlights the issue as of late. Do I share all of the values/beliefs that my
CEO does? No. Should I boycott my CEO for having conflicting values/beliefs?
Maybe. If I am totally against something, then I should stand up for my
beliefs. I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs
to rally against another individual.

I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting
pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established
state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would
make the United States of America.

If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North
Korea, Iran, etc?

I am not very political, and I have many left and right wing perspectives. I
am just saddened to see our country starting to stumble on a slippery slope.

~~~
webwright
"It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an
individual's freedom of speech/thought."

No. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If you're pro-
rape, you're a pariah, but it's not illegal just to have those beliefs. If
you're pro-racism, you're going to have a hard time in most places. We don't
have to respect those beliefs, and (if we feel strongly enough) we can choose
not include those people in our lives (work for them, shop at their stores,
etc)... But we do have to support their _legal right_ to have/express those
beliefs and (hopefully) treat them with respect rather than doubling down with
hate.

Now take a belief like "we should increase the minimum wage". Are there many
people that would grab their pitchfork and light their torches over that
belief? Nope.

So the question is: How reprehensible is it to believe that same-sex marriage
should not be legal? Is it a political issue, like minimum wage, or is it a
human rights issue, like interracial marriage?

~~~
slantyyz
>> Is it a political issue, like minimum wage

One might argue that minimum wage is a human rights issue, especially if a
full time employee on minimum wage can't afford food _and_ shelter.

~~~
sliverstorm
I don't think it works like that. Last I understood, right to food & shelter
is primarily a _negative_ right, meaning nobody can _deprive_ you of those
things. Similar to right to movement- nobody is obligated to buy you a bus
ticket, but outside of special circumstances nobody is allowed to _stop_ you
from buying that bus ticket.

~~~
slantyyz
Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing)

[snip]

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right
to housing as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. It states
that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and
medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the
event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack
of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

[/snip]

Doesn't sound like the right to an adequate standard of living (which would
include food and shelter) is a negative right to me.

~~~
sliverstorm
Well, that's how it is according to the UN. I'm attempting to find something
more specifically about the USA- the UN's opinions are often pie-in-the-sky...

Obviously reality is more nuanced; notice the unrest of SF residents recently.
Many can't afford their SF flats anymore; is that a violation of human rights?
Do we need to subsidize their housing?

Clearly there is a _positive_ aspect- Section 8 housing, anyone?- but it seems
like that plays a small part in the overall "right".

------
briantakita
> So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in
> Silicon Valley.

Let's find all the heretics and burn them! j/k

I'm glad that we are beginning to have a rational discussion about the
implications of internet mob justice. I hope it continues.

Please refrain from flagging rational points of view that you don't agree
with. That's called censorship.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

~~~
kenjackson
Unlike most other politicized topics, I don't think there is a rational
position on opposing gay marriage in the US. At least none I have heard yet.

~~~
danudey
This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries
to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay
married?

The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not
allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite,
more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though
it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars
to try to prevent it.

I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing
something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible
way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't
seem like a rational decision for a person to make.

~~~
gyardley
I've heard people say something like "it's far too soon to tell what impact if
any this rather dramatic change to the traditional definition of marriage will
have on society, so perhaps we should take things slow and not rush to
implement it everywhere simultaneously."

This seems like a reasonable enough position to me -- although I don't share
it because I think the injustice to the individuals affected outweighs any
potential drawbacks I can come up with, sometimes the law of unexpected
consequences surprises us in interesting ways.

I've also heard people say "judge-made law causes resentment and entrenchment
in a minority of the populace and leads to long-term conflicts (see, for
instance, Roe vs. Wade). Therefore, while it'd be nice to have gay marriage
everywhere simultaneously, we should wait to introduce it in a jurisdiction
until we have an electoral majority there."

Again, this seems like a reasonable enough position to me, although not one I
personally share.

Brendan Eich would be just fine as CEO in a more civil society where people
are capable of separating personal opinions and professional actions. My
personal dislike of his 'resignation' comes from a desire to have that (sadly
imaginary) society instead of the one we've got. If I can work peaceably with
a bunch of left-wing people, y'all should be able to work just fine with
Brendan.

~~~
sliverstorm
_This seems like a reasonable enough position to me -- although I don 't share
it_

You have just blown thousands of collective minds. Such a stance is
_possible_?

~~~
mkr-hn
Being able to understand how someone arrives at a view while not also holding
that view is an important part of being empathetic.

------
anigbrowl
I was on the other side of this debate (ie against prop 8, pro gay marriage),
and we donated and engaged in some advocacy in support of that view. I
strongly believe in the idea of marriage as a civil rights issue which should
be available to any pair of consenting adults (and perhaps configurations
other than pairs, if I'm going to be intellectually consistent about it).

On the other hand, I also strongly believe in people's right to hold other
points of view. I would certainly want no truck, as an individual or as a
customer of a business, with someone who made a habit of expressing the
differing opinion in hateful terms or by actions designed to injure the
subjects of that opinion (eg firing gay employees or refusing to grant
benefits to same-sex spouses or domestic partners), but on the other hand I
don't really have a problem with someone who treats everyone consistently and
with respect, although that person might have quite different beliefs from me
about how things should be.

The thing is, there might be a wide range of things motivating that belief,
from some deep pragmatic, religious, or moral conviction to simple antipathy.
Unless the person acts or speaks to signal what those motivations are, I don't
see any point in trying to make judgments about them or by extension of the
person, for the same reason I wouldn't want people making extrapolations about
my character from a single data point. This hasn't stopped a lot of other
people from demonizing Eich on the basis of his donation, without giving any
apparent weight to his behavior at Mozilla or the experience of LGBT people
who work with him there (several of whom have blogged in support of his
appointment notwithstanding their disagreement with his support of prop 8).
Not being gay it's easy for me not to take the issue personally, but I'm
inclined to give a lot of weight to people who _are_ gay and deal with him on
a regular basis.

The whole business has an unsavory air of internet bullying to it, to be
frank. I'm not thinking of people like Catlin Hampton who went public about
their discomfort with Eich's appointment so much as the large number of
tweets, comments and so on that adopted a confrontational stance and made it
into a zero-sum binary issue, eg people calling him 'Eich(mann)' and equating
him with the late and largely unlamented Fred Phelps. Characterizations of
this sort don't seem any better to me than characterizations of gay people as
perverts or suchlike. Bandwagon behavior seems to bring out the worst in
people and reminds me of why I generally dislike being in groups.

~~~
hippoman
Whenever people have strong views like this, I'm skeptical how hostile they'll
be to innocent people who don't fit their sharply defined worldview. In the UK
a 16 year old "adult" can marry a 40 year old. If you support that right are
you are active in opposing the 18-years age of consent laws in some US states?
If you don't support it, do you see the UK laws as enabling child abuse?

My point is that when you put arbitrary conditions on what you're going to
accept, you can end up including and excluding some people unfairly. How about
just "as long as nobody is harmed"?

------
johngalt
I completely support the right of people to gather statistics like this and
make informed decisions about their consumer habits. I also support the right
of Mozilla to make employment decisions based upon this.

Next up. Anyone who has ever supported abortion rights suddenly can't buy a
house or gain employment anywhere in the state of Texas.

------
sssbc
So, I've got a pitchfork with Intel's name on it. Need someone with a torch,
similarly labeled. Preferably dozens. Anyone with me?

(crickets...)

OkStupid, I can count on you, right? Surely you can tell AMD vs. Intel inside
with your cool-o web tech, data analysis, ...

(yeah, go ahead and down vote me, doesn't make me wrong).

------
jqm
Personally I don't believe in marriage at all, at least from a government
perspective. Civil unions for all I say... let customary "marriage" take place
in your church or synagogue or wooded grove or whatever and have no bearing on
anyone else. By now it seems pretty obvious that committed people should be
entitled to the same legal protections regardless of sexual orientation...

That being said... not believing gay marriage is appropriate is NOT the same
as believing similarly about inter-racial marriage. Some people (and I am not
among these) feel marriage is a venue for biological reproduction and raising
of children. And no matter how many rights gay people have, until our
technology advances a bit further this is not something they are able to do.
An inter-racial couple on the other hand can.

So please... stop with the "This is just like banning inter-racial marriage!"
nonsense. In many peoples minds (again, not mine) it isn't.

And yes Eich was done badly. And OKCupid are bad actors in my opinion and
should be called out on their nonsense. Particularly in view of threatening an
open source browser.

~~~
bashinator
If marriage is a venue for biological reproduction, then people shouldn't get
the tax breaks and other legal benefits (hospital visitation, etc) until
they've done so. Maybe the marriage certificate should be provisional until
the first birth? Also, adoption certainly shouldn't count, since that's
something same-sex couples can also do.

~~~
jqm
Oh, I agree 100% on the tax breaks and legal benefits. This is skewed in favor
of the "traditional" at the moment and this isn't fair.

But, part of societies job is to insure future generations. Bottom line....
gay people can't do this.

~~~
bashinator
Stable high-income gay couples can't give adopted children a far better life
opportunity (and hence increased tax income and lower social welfare costs for
society at large), than if those children bounced around in foster homes until
aging out?

------
elwell
Interesting stat there on Intel.

~~~
revelation
I wonder what the age breakup of their SV workforce is. Intel didn't get big
on software, so presumably their workers are a generation apart from those of
Google.

~~~
sliverstorm
Google is still only 16 years old; Intel is 46. Yes, you can hire people mid-
career, but only one of these two companies has really had enough time to grow
a full crop of wizened engineers.

As we all know, older folks tend to vote more conservative.

------
Xelank
Great analysis here. Really shows our double standard and mob mentality.

I'm not against people boycotting Mozilla (because that's their choice) but
the whole things is just a big hotheaded mobfest (like all the other mobfest
in the past).

------
bowlofpetunias
What this shows is a great disparity between companies, i.e. corporate culture
apparently attracts and/or fosters bigotry. (Intel, wtf?)

Which only supports the notion that Mozilla, given it's clear stance on
equality and inclusiveness, should not be lead by a bigot like Eich. It was a
completely inappropriate choice to begin with.

On a side note, I am disgusted by the way this is being artificially
politicized by using terms like "progressive" and "liberal". Supporting equal
civil rights for all is not a political view, not does being conservative mean
being anti-gay.

This is not a political issue. You wouldn't call someone who is against
institutionalized racism a "liberal" or "progressive".

The attempts to frame bigotry as politics is probably the most sickening part
of this whole debacle.

