I disagree with the article. It appears to make two points, both don’t convice me.
The first one is about a political donation made by the founder 15 years ago to the tune of 1000 USD.
It was against gay marriage. While I somewhat support gay marriage, I find it totally acceptable to be opposed to it.
It depends on what marriage means, and people don’t agree on that. For some people it just means a strong bond, stronger than a normal relationship. With this definition, gay marriage isn’t an issue.
But to other people marriage is an envelope that’s supposed to foster reproduction and family building. With this definition gay marriage isn’t exactly straightforward. Neither should it be for people with fertility problems and women over 50 in general. Are convervatives also against that? I guess they should. Whatever. I started off thinking I could defend the stance, now i don’t think i did. Either way, ditch a browser over this nonsense?
And if Tim Berners Lee spews some BS, will you stop using the Internet?
Or if your country elects a stupid president, will you boycott the country and leave temporatily?
The other issue is what Brave does with ads. While I agree it is imperfect, I think in general the approach is among the better ones around.
I’m pro gay marriage, and merely attempted to reconstruct the opposing logic, and apparently failed halfway through.
Now, whats homophobic about this? The fact that in general to people of the same sex won’t reproduce? That seems about as outrageous as the thought that obesity is a medical condition.
The thought that your (or anybody’s) relationship values are justification for taking away people’s rights is homophobic at best. Any defense of this mindset shows that you don’t value a person’s legal rights to some extent. That’s why you’re getting pushback.
Well, legal rights depend on the law. So when arguing about the law it’s silly to refer to legal rights. It’s like conservatives who want to keep pot banned because it’s illegal.
What do you think about a triangular marriage with three people?
At the time, same sex couples already had the right to marry in California. He donated money to take that right away from them. Would your stance be the same if he donated money to remove civil rights protections for racial minorities?
I think civil rights for minorities are super important.
I find marriage much less important. It’s essentially just a symbol. (Or is it about the tax benefits and legal protections in case of death? That’s substantial)
Yeah, just a symbol until your deceased partner’s family tries to take your house. Just a symbol until you realize you can’t sponsor your foreign partner for immigration because the government doesn’t recognize your relationship.
Those legal protections around property are the whole point of the law recognizing marriage.
I disagree with the article. It appears to make two points, both don’t convice me.
The first one is about a political donation made by the founder 15 years ago to the tune of 1000 USD. It was against gay marriage. While I somewhat support gay marriage, I find it totally acceptable to be opposed to it. It depends on what marriage means, and people don’t agree on that. For some people it just means a strong bond, stronger than a normal relationship. With this definition, gay marriage isn’t an issue.
But to other people marriage is an envelope that’s supposed to foster reproduction and family building. With this definition gay marriage isn’t exactly straightforward. Neither should it be for people with fertility problems and women over 50 in general. Are convervatives also against that? I guess they should. Whatever. I started off thinking I could defend the stance, now i don’t think i did. Either way, ditch a browser over this nonsense?
And if Tim Berners Lee spews some BS, will you stop using the Internet? Or if your country elects a stupid president, will you boycott the country and leave temporatily?
The other issue is what Brave does with ads. While I agree it is imperfect, I think in general the approach is among the better ones around.
Wow, this is some real homophobic bullshit.
I’m pro gay marriage, and merely attempted to reconstruct the opposing logic, and apparently failed halfway through.
Now, whats homophobic about this? The fact that in general to people of the same sex won’t reproduce? That seems about as outrageous as the thought that obesity is a medical condition.
The thought that your (or anybody’s) relationship values are justification for taking away people’s rights is homophobic at best. Any defense of this mindset shows that you don’t value a person’s legal rights to some extent. That’s why you’re getting pushback.
Well, legal rights depend on the law. So when arguing about the law it’s silly to refer to legal rights. It’s like conservatives who want to keep pot banned because it’s illegal.
What do you think about a triangular marriage with three people?
At the time, same sex couples already had the right to marry in California. He donated money to take that right away from them. Would your stance be the same if he donated money to remove civil rights protections for racial minorities?
That actually makes a difference to me.
I think civil rights for minorities are super important.
I find marriage much less important. It’s essentially just a symbol. (Or is it about the tax benefits and legal protections in case of death? That’s substantial)
Yeah, just a symbol until your deceased partner’s family tries to take your house. Just a symbol until you realize you can’t sponsor your foreign partner for immigration because the government doesn’t recognize your relationship.
Those legal protections around property are the whole point of the law recognizing marriage.
For a moment I though I was on Twitter