Controversy

[liv]

So Gerv posted a call for people to sign the petition to keep marriage restricted to one man and one woman. This offended lots of people, and appears to have turned into one of those internet imbroglios. I didn't realize just how far it had spread until I was idly browsing Geek Feminism, of all things, and stumbled across some commentary.

In some ways this has played out exactly like every other internet imbroglio where a fairly high profile person makes inept or offensive comments about members of a minority group, and there is a rush to condemnation and links get passed round and the argument reaches a much wider audience than the people who were involved in the original discussion, and it all turns ugly. You've got people trying to make completely irrelevant arguments about free speech and censorship, ridiculous attempts to quantify just how offensive the original comment was, lots of posturing about who is the most righteous, tone arguments and arguments about the tone argument. (I'm not convinced Addie's analysis is entirely correct, but it at least has the advantage of being charitable towards the people on the "wrong", ie harmful to members of a minority, side of the argument.)

The difference is that this time, the person at the centre of the controversy is a friend of mine. I've known Gerv since first year chemistry lectures in 1997; that's pretty much all my adult life, and a lot of history. I'm pretty sure he's not "homophobic" in any obvious sense of the word. But of course, entering the discussion to say that would be thoroughly unhelpful, it's what everybody always says: he's my friend, he can't possibly be a bad person! What he is is a committed, active member of a religious group, as an Evangelical Christian, whose leadership can be quite homophobic. This means that his reasonably balanced, sincere remarks about gay issues pick up the connotations of frothing homophobia from players in the US culture wars who take a similar position, but much less reasonably.

It's incredibly difficult to break with your religious leadership on a matter of conscience, because people are naturally strongly influenced by the accepted position within their communities, and that's even more intensely the case if you are actually a sincere believer in the key tenets of your religion. I belong to a religion that doesn't have much of a centralized hierarchy, and a denomination within that which is even more decentralized than most, but I definitely do still experience conflicts between my commitment to redressing social inequalities, and my religion's official positions. In my case I have bigger problems with the treatment of converts and with anti-Muslim / anti-Arab prejudice than with homophobia (not that Reform Judaism is perfect on that score, but it's reasonably good), but I feel that it's more individuals not living up to our shared religious ideals, rather than the leadership trying to drag its membership socially backwards.

It's a bad idea for me to come out in support of a non-homophobic person because he's coming from a religious context with harmful views about homosexuality. That just contributes to the further marginalization of QuILTBAG folk. It's basically irrelevant that Gerv is a decent person; even though he meant well, his words still contributed to harm, and people have the right to push back strongly against that. The issues are muddled because that's what happens with internet discussions, but the main problem here is that his blog post can be interpreted as a official statement on the part of Mozilla, and this could be said to contribute to creating an unsafe environment for volunteers and employees of Mozilla who aren't straight. I don't know how Mozilla should address this; I'm not part of that company or that community, but I do know that attempts to address the problem should not automatically be dismissed as "bullying" or "censoring" the poor widdle homophobes.

I am a little concerned that Gerv's call to sign the gender-specific marriage petition is being regarded as hate speech; it seems a bit much that anything at all except the party line of completely equal legal status for same sex marriage is in the category of homophobic hate speech. Last I checked, there were divisions even within the QuILTBAG activist community about whether marriage equality is the best outcome we should be fighting for. What happened to the assimilationist versus separatist debate? What happened to the faction who think the best solution is to get rid of state-sanctioned marriage altogether? Is it homophobic hate speech now to question whether marriage in its current form is an institution worth supporting?

And on a personal level, you know, Gerv is still my friend whom I disagree with about lots of stuff. I am forever grateful that university brought me into contact from people of all kinds of backgrounds with all kinds of views. I argued with him a bit on his original post, but I know I'm not going to change his basic opinion all sex is sinful except within a highly gendered marriage between a man and a woman. There are some opinions I might consider disowning a friend for, but I don't think this should be one. But it's always tricky to balance loyalty to a friend with loyalty to principles, and my deep commitment to pluralism and diversity with my commitment to ending oppression.

One thing I do find encouraging is that it seems like even the political voices most strongly against marriage equality are falling back on the argument that civil partnerships are good enough, not that gay people are sick and disgusting and perverts and deserve to be cast out of society. So at least in the UK, it seems like the battle is very close to being won.

Comments

[eumelia]

There is division, I personally am on the so-called anti-marriage side of the debate, such as it is.

However, when you demand keeping the status quo of heterosexual privilege alive and well via a law that will keep same sex relationships as lacking in the criteria for current government benefits, it's a very slippery slope. And what about marriages in which one person transitioned from one gender to another - is what was once a different sex marriage now null and void because it is a same sex marriage?

I think marriage is the wrong battle to be fighting when it comes to human rights, but demanding different sex marriage be ratified even more into law? How is that not hate speech?

I think marriage as an institution is oppressive and is another form of government surveillance, but at the moment is grants the married couple benefits a long term cohabiting couple, in most countries, does not have. But things are changing and the demand to keep same sex couples who want to be married (for whatever reasons, it's not really our business why a couple wants to be married) is definitely on the side of those who don't consider QUILTBAGS human enough to married.

[liv]

Thank you, I'm glad you contributed your perspective on this issue. I agree that Gerv is not in any way an ally, and I think he's wrong, morally and politically, in his views about marriage, but I do think there's space between support and hate speech, and I think he's in that space.

The background you may not have is that in the UK we have "civil partnership" for same-sex couples; it's kind of a stupid compromise, but the point is that it meets all the criteria for current government benefits, it just isn't called marriage. Indeed, there are laws on the books that even private institutions aren't allowed to treat civil partners any differently from married couples; a Christian-run B&B was successfully sued because they wouldn't let same sex civil partners share a double room, because they weren't "married". So it's not that Gerv or his crowd are trying to deny same-sex couples the human right to have their relationship recognized by the state or any of the associated benefits, it's that he doesn't want to call it marriage because he thinks the word married has a specific Christian technical meaning.

I agree that the dual system, even if on paper civil partnerships and marriages confer exactly the same rights, is messed up. And the problem of trans people being forced to divorce or separate and then remarry or recivilize is one of the big flaws in the system, one I have tried pointing out to Gerv. But I don't think it's hate speech to argue for two parallel systems with different names; after all, that is a compromise that prominent gay rights orgs in this country were prepared to accept.

I suspect that you could probably tell Gerv a few things about the consequences you end up with if you try to hand over control of a civil institution like marriage to the religious authorities! But that's basically what he wants, he is anti-secularism and wants the Church to have a stronger political role, but not particularly anti-gay. Most of my friends are secularists, as am I, but I don't think that all decent moral people must inevitably be secularist.

[eumelia]

As I understand it civil partnerships in the UK are not equivalent in rights and benefits as marriage, but I guess that's beside the point, because the argument is about semantics and the semantics, unfortunately, are part of the package of relating to minority groups as human beings.

If civil partnership is the same all but in name to marriage, then the double standard exists to keep discrimination alive. If civil partnership exists in order to keep religious institutions "safe" from conducting same sex weddings which several religious doctrines and denominations oppose as a matter of principle or dogma, then that is discrimination.

Is supporting discrimination "hate speech"? I don't know, really. I think it is hateful, because you are pushing to keep minority groups further marginalised.

But I don't think it's hate speech to argue for two parallel systems with different names; after all, that is a compromise that prominent gay rights orgs in this country were prepared to accept.

"Separate but equal" much? We all know it doesn't work that way.

I think the fact that prominent gay rights groups compromised on this is neither here nor there, they are lobbying orgs and they have to compromise lest they be painted as "radical". There's nothing more harmful, in representational politics, than to be thought of as radical. Also, I would go out on a limb and say a great many QuILTBAG people are pretty pissed off at that compromise - barring those who think pushing for marriage just isn't the way to go, when it comes to civil rights.

Religion being in charge of civil institutions is a slippery slope and does nothing but corrupt the systems themselves. I can't even think about marriage equality in Israel when people of different religions can't get married in this country.

[naath]

Civil Partnerships in the UK have, within the UK, all the same rights-and-benefits as marriages. Outside of the UK they may (or may not) be recognised. Notably (unlike all current US efforts) they are recognised in the same way as marriages for the purpose of immigration.

It is simply a ludicrous attempt to keep the word "marriage" for a subset of people. Which is painful bigotry, but at least it doesn't keep one from useful legal rights.

The idea that religious people get to own the word "marriage" frankly offends me. And it's not all religious people with these views of course - many religious groups are keen to be able to marry same-sex couples in their religious rites; so these groups are not just anti-secularism, they are also anti-religious-freedom for religious groups who disagree with them.

[liv]

Yeah, I'm certainly coming round to your point of view that insisting on the semantic distinction may come close to being hate speech, and not just an unpleasant opinion. You're quite right about the double standard exists to keep discrimination alive, and that civil partnership exists in order to keep religious institutions "safe" from conducting same sex weddings. (This has the incidental effect of discriminating against those religions and denominations which do want to conduct same-sex weddings, and that's probably the main reason the law can be subject to challenge as it stands.)

It's certainly not a nice situation, and I wish we hadn't ended up with this silly compromise! You're also very wise to point out that lobbying groups make compromises in order not to be seen as radical; some definitely feel that we've been sold out by the groups that were supposed to represent us.

[redbird]

I don't think being opposed to all marriages is homophobic or anti-gay. Being opposed only to same-sex marriages is. I don't see a large movement to replace, for example, U.S. state laws that say marriage is restricted to other-sex couples with laws saying "this state does not recognize marriage, at all, by anyone." They aren't insisting that same-sex couples, even if they have been legally married for ages, make wills and create medical powers of attorney if they don't want their assets going to their parents or their siblings making their decisions if they're incapacitated. There are good arguments for making arrangements other than marriage: I don't see any good arguments for saying that marriage is such a dubious institution that only 90% of couples should have access to it. (This is, I think, more or less what eumelia is saying.)

Also, at some point I don't care whether someone who is advocating policies that are actively, specifically, and deliberately oppressive to non-heterosexuals is homophobic. They can have all the gay friends they like, if those people find them to be good friends otherwise, but they are still advocating policies that would harm us.

Yes, balancing loyalty to a friend with loyalty to principles is tricky. One thing I'm fairly sure of here is that you're right, "he's my friend and therefore can't be that bad a person" would be unhelpful even if you were sure it was true. Also that just about everyone, regardless of their opinions, has some friends; I don't believe in black hats and white hats and people who are always or never wrong. The questions are Is he wrong about this? (yes) and What should Mozilla be doing? Not Is Gerd a bad person? or How can we persuade Gerd he is wrong about this issue?

[liv]

I think you're definitely right about what matters and what doesn't, here. As far as I can gather Gerv is basically opposed to civil marriage altogether, he wants only Christian marriage to have state recognition, and his church's definition of Christian marriage excludes same-sex couples. All the stuff about wills and medical powers of attorney and so on are already covered by the existing laws about same-sex civil partnerships. So arguing for the status quo is arguing that same-sex couples should have exactly the same rights as opposite sex, except for the right to have their relationship written down in the legal records under the heading of "marriage". I mean, I agree entirely that this is a wrongheaded view, but the level of harm it's doing to non-heterosexuals is pretty minor. I don't think that's homophobic hate speech, I think it's expressing a prejudiced view that I disagree with.

[elf]

I can understand the argument that "marriage in the UK has been legally defined to require PIV intercourse, therefor same-sex couples can't have marriages." However, I was under the impression that opposite-sex marriage isn't forbidden to those people who, by disability or choice, won't be participating in "consummation" in the legal sense, and that nobody forcibly annuls those marriages if it's discovered they were never consummated.

Gerv brings up the question, "To give a blunt example: how do you define adultery if marriage no longer includes the concept of consummation?"

I don't get this. Is he saying that only "consummation" counts as adultery? Or that only marriages that have been "consummated" can have charges of adultery, which is, ah, many different kinds of sexual acts?

[redbird]

I'm torn between "I will leave defining adultery to people who think it's a useful concept" and the poly idea that cheating involves violating your agreements with your partner(s).

A lot of monogamous couples are using a default definition thereof, but that can also run into trouble when it turns out that two people have picked up different ideas without discussing it. Those differences aren't at the level Gerv is talking about—just about anyone who thinks "adultery" is meaningful would include extramarital PIV intercourse—but things like Where short of PIV intercourse do you draw the line? And what about "emotional affairs"? Does he realize how much extramarital heterosexual activity would, by that definition, not count as adultery?

[liv]

One of the (very few) situations where there is asymmetry between same-sex civil partnerships and opposite-sex marriages is that adultery is automatic grounds for divorce in the latter relationship, but not automatic grounds for legal separation in the former. So far there haven't been any practical legal consequences for this, but I suspect it's only a matter of time. While this may be somewhat positive for poly folk whose primary relationship is a legally recognized same-sex civil partnership, for the majority of same sex couples it has the potential to be slightly awkward. There's a big catch-all category of grounds for divorce called, I believe, unreasonable behaviour which is generally used to cover infidelity that fails to meet the technical definition of adultery, but it's up to the court's discretion in a way that proof of PIV intercourse with a member of the opposite sex other than one's spouse isn't.

I could possibly point out to Gerv that the definition of adultery he's insisting on is in no way Biblical. The OT definition is quite a bit broader than that, and the NT definition is way way broader (whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her). But at this point I don't think it would help!

[liv]

I think the argument about the technical definition of adultery is basically a red herring, and I'm not even sure that the source Gerv is relying on is correct about the details of exactly what the law is. I agree that there are plenty of opposite sex couples who might want to contract a marriage that Gerv's church would be happy to recognize as legitimate, but who don't want to or are unable to have PIV intercourse. It is legally possible to annul marriages on the grounds of non-consummation, but since we have a fairly robust divorce system this basically never happens in practice, and it certainly doesn't happen forcibly!

I have a feeling this fixation with PIV intercourse is something to do with a system of reasoning that says that strictly segregated male and female gender roles are "natural" in the technical theological sense. I have absolutely no time for that argument, but that's because my religious tradition doesn't really care about the concept of nature as a source for justice and religion. But that's the only reason I can think of to bring up specific sex acts in the discussion of who has the legal right to marry.

[nicki]

Whether he's homophobic or not probably only he knows, but it looks to me like what he definitely does have happening is religious bigottry. His entire standpoint seems to be, "My religion calls this a sin and therefore it doesn't matter what the majority of people or other religions/religious denominations think and therefore you all should be forced to do the thing my relgions says (with implied, because you all are wrong and only my group is right)." He has fallen for the same mistaken idea that many US fundamentalists make in thinking that it is the job of the civil government to legislate morality.

Unfortunately, I think we all have friends who we think are not bad people but at the same time are not really admirable in one or two areas.

[liv]

Yeah, I think it's probably fair to say that Gerv is more of a religious bigot than a homophobe. He pretty much does believe that his religion is right and everybody else should be legally compelled to follow the tenets of his religion. And he's one of a very small minority in my social circle who isn't committed to secularism. I do find it very hard to get my head round that sort of attitude to religion; I'm a pluralist first and foremost. But as a pluralist, I accept that people interpret religion differently from me.

And, well, while I don't at all admire this approach to religion, I also don't feel I have the right to condemn it. If I refused to be friends with any Evangelical Christians (or Catholics or Bahá'ís or anyone else whose official religious doctrines are homophobic) I would be a religious bigot myself.

[kaberett]

And, well, while I don't at all admire this approach to religion, I also don't feel I have the right to condemn it. If I refused to be friends with any Evangelical Christians (or Catholics or Bahá'ís or anyone else whose official religious doctrines are homophobic) I would be a religious bigot myself.

Coming back to this comment way, way later, I'm still really uncomfortable with it. I'm not sure I can unpick quite why, but I'll give it a go:

Is that a blanket "if I refuse to be friends with ANYONE IN THESE CATEGORIES regardless of their specific personal feelings towards those doctrines"?

IF SO:
- I agree that's religious bigotry (and a bad thing)
- I don't think that is what would be going on if you refused to be friends with someone because they subscribe to abhorrent bits of their religion's doctrine

IF NOT:
- your comment seems to suggest that it's religious bigotry to refuse to friends with people who subscribe to homophobic doctrine; why does religion here take the role of a "protected characteristic" where (I assume?) you don't take/state the same attitude to heterosexist atheists/agnostics?


To be clear, I'm coming from a knee-jerk reaction of having had consistently really, REALLY bad experiences with every Christian Union I've ever come into contact with, from the age of 14 on up; for the sake of my own health, I therefore tend to be extremely wary around CU members (to levels that are dependent on the individual CU's reputation). Do you consider this religious bigotry?

[hairyears]

The world moves on, and some people are left behind: Gerv appears to be one of them.

I am well aware that I would share his views were I living in the nineteen-forties in Ireland; I might well share these views today if I were immersed in a religious community and a social circle that still held such views and values in the present day. But I do not, and I am more fortunate in my friendships than I deserve to be.

Perhaps we all are.

Which raises the question: how do we ensure that we, in our influence on others, are beneficial? Cutting off Gerv would reinforce him in his views; and managing the inevitable 'distancing' as he finds himself further and further behind mainstream society is going to get harder - but that is going to happen.

I think the 'ideal' is that you remain enough of a friend to be a source of support when the World comes crashing in on him; and nonjudgemental, unconditional support is the only thing that brings round truly dangerous, blindly-hurtful zealots - I hasten to add that I do would not put any of you friends in that category, known or unknown to me! - but you'll need to be quite calculating, and at times quite cynical, in managing the friendship in such a way that you never give validation to his more toxic beliefs, nor allow yourself to be seen supporting him in actions which *will* be hurtful to others.

Yes, it's distasteful taking that calculated approach to a friendship. Some people have the natural grace to do it all subconsciously, and I envy them. Some people can't, at all; and some people conclude - correctly - that some friends and some friendships can't be 'managed', or salvaged.

Place yourself somewhere in there, and see if it's a useful view.

My best advice would be to pursue whatever courses leave choices open, rather than close off avenues of communication: 'putting things off' and muddling through aren't always a bad way to go.

Also: the phrase: "They've crossed the line this time" is always worse than useless.

[(Anonymous)]

I am well aware that I would share his views were I living in the nineteen-forties in Ireland; I might well share these views today if I were immersed in a religious community and a social circle that still held such views and values in the present day. But I do not, and I am more fortunate in my friendships than I deserve to be.

Perhaps we all are.

To my eye, there's something distinctively Rawlsian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice) about that sentiment - I think I approve, but I'd have to read more to know for sure. The basic idea is to imagine a group of people drawing up a social contract and principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance, such that:

"no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

Emphasis mine; the business with the conceptions of the good is what makes me see a parallel here.

[ptc24]

Ooops, that was me, the emphasis on "I shall ... of the good" doesn't seem to show in liv's style. Oh well.

[liv]

Thank you, this really gets to the core of the issue I'm trying to talk about here. I want to be loyal to my friends, but without hurting my other friends by visibly supporting hurtful views. And I think you're right that the way to do this is to take a fairly calculated approach. The other side of the coin, though, is that it's a matter of principle with me that I can be friends with people who have different political / religious / etc views from myself. If I started cutting people off for disagreeing with me, I'd be a fundamentalist myself, I'd be removing myself from the possibility that I could be wrong or that my understanding may evolve over time.

I'm not as certain as you are that my nice fluffy liberal egalitarian world-view will prevail. I think it's just as likely that the liberal bubble will burst, either in the wake of a major energy / water / climate crisis, or because people who share Gerv's perspective are gaining increasing political and media influence in the US, and the US is still enough of a world power that political tendencies over there can have major effects on European society.

[elf]

I think it's just as likely that the liberal bubble will burst,

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the split isn't liberal/conservative as much as it is young/old. And it's a steady progression, not a bubble. And support is growing across all groups, with "younger than baby-boomer" being the strongest supporters:

Among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents 35 to 49 years old, and to 41 percent for those 50 to 64 years of age. The poll indicates that only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages as valid.

[siderea]

If I started cutting people off for disagreeing with me, I'd be a fundamentalist myself, I'd be removing myself from the possibility that I could be wrong or that my understanding may evolve over time.

You keep saying it, as if it were a foregone conclusion, and I think it's not.

Allow me to clarify your thinking, in the time-honored way of philosophy classes: take the wrong to an unambiguous extreme, such as murder.

If someone you accounted a friend was to commit a murder in cold blood, and be unrepentant or at least equivocate about it, would you continue to feel you had a moral duty to continue to be friends with them?

As it happens, a FOAF performed a hit -- you know, a killing for money -- on an infant child. Got a lengthy sentence and died in prison. The friend between us had some interesting things to say about the experience of learning about the atrocity his friend committed.

I don't know which way you'll decide. But if you grant the question is worth considering, then you've allowed as how loyalty has limits.

And on the flip side, as someone who is staunchly pro-choice, I have much more respect for the allegedly pro-life who would have nothing to do with me socially because they see me as advocating murder, than I do those who bandy about the word "murder" but never seem to make any decision based on it as if they actually believed it.

I'm not advocating that you cut him off. I'm advocating that whatever you do, you not use the argument, "well, I'd be just as bad if I demonstrated having moral principles".

[hairyears]

Yes, cutting people off is best approached with reluctance! The three most useful questions are:

Are they a danger to my own well-being?
Are they a danger to others' health and well-being, that I cannot 'quarantine' from people around me?
Is this stuff something they say, something they believe, or something that they are?

Beyond the personal sphere, the fluffy liberal view is winning... In the sense of Bohr's bitter remark that new ideas do not win by argument, far less by being right; the entrenched defenders of the older view grow old and die, and are replaced by younger minds who grew up in a world where these ideas were self-evident.

I worry that the conservatives, the zealots and authoritarians know that they are dying out and are becoming desperate; they relish division and may well impose their views in ever-more unpleasant ways; and, for now, they are entrenched in the media and the 'Politburo' levels of organisations with real secular power.

The imprisonment and arraignment of teenagers who miscarry is only the beginning of it: and whatever cannot be achieved by the misuse of law will be pursued by means of slander and violence.

Some of these authoritarians will waver and break when confronted with the human consequences of their actions; others will retreat ever-deeper into their closed community of mutually-reinforcing and ever-deepening extremism.

We live in interesting times. But we do, for the most part, get to enjoy the benefits of fluffy liberalism: and I am constantly delighted to discover that these benefits are *fun*.

[nameandnature]

I read the links. Blimey: bigoted evangelical vs identity politics fanatics who apparently think "check your privilege" is the trump card in an argument and that all disagreement is "hate speech". Is it all possible to arrange it so they both lose?

I can't help but think that calling this sort of thing "hate speech" plays into the hands of the nutters: there's a post from Rev Julian Mann, a nutter, on Heresy Corner, where Mann quotes UKIP: "If the government does legislate in this way, we believe that any criticism of same-sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a 'hate crime'. That would be a grotesque assault on people's freedom of conscience." I'd want to re-assure Mann/UKIP that gay marriage is not part of a slippery slope to suppress unpleasant but permissible political speech (which is what I'd see that petition as).

What Mozilla wants to allow on their blog aggregator is another thing: Gerv clearly didn't break the policy as it stood, but it's up to them what they allow. If they aren't willing to allow Gerv's post, though, I would expect them to disallow advocacy of, say, left wing political causes and atheism.

[liv]

Yeah, I am with you that calling the petition hate speech is a bit much. I generally sympathize with tim's political views but I find his belligerent style very offputting. I imagine that's even more the case for you, you really really hate the language of privilege and oppression. For my part I think the world needs nukers as well as appeasers, so I try not to put too much weight on my own discomfort with that style of responding to homophobic opinions.

I basically don't care what a homophobic preacher or UKIP think; they're not going to support my causes no matter what arguments I martial. And I have little patience for trying to make this kind of debate into a free speech issue. Yes, fine, Gerv has the right to express his opinions about gay marriage, but the rest of us have the right to express our opinions that he is wrong and offensive. Duh.

The issue with Mozilla is really complicated and part of the problem here is that a bunch of people are weighing in who don't really understand what Planet Mozilla is, and whether Gerv could be said to be speaking in an "official" capacity. Planet is not just a blog aggregator, it's something more than that, and to a large extent I think this is what the debate's really about, not about whether same-sex marriages should be called marriages or not. Which is rather a minor issue for the rest of the internet, but of course people like to weigh in about that kind of thing, that's the nature of internet debates. I don't think there's a symmetry between left-wing causes and homophobia, or atheism and homophobia, though. I would expect Mozilla, if they wanted to create a positive, diverse working environment, to allow people to post saying they want to raise taxes for social welfare programmes, and to post saying that God doesn't exist (both of which would doubtless offend people like Gerv, but people have to deal with being offended in a diverse workplace). I would not expect them to allow posts saying that Christians are all horrible bigots and should be stripped of their rights. But it's perfectly possible to hold left wing and / or atheist views without in any way going near that kind of thing, and I think it's a mistake to concede the argument that the mere expression of unbelief or caring about social justice is inherently oppressive to Christians or conservative people.

[nameandnature]

you really really hate the language of privilege and oppression

I don't like it being used as a conversation stopper along the lines of "I pity you infinitely for your sins" in Suber's paper because that encourages irrationality (see also Fully General Counterargument). I do believe that some groups are systematically disadvantaged and that what they have to say about that is a good source of evidence for what it's like to be in their situation.

I basically don't care what a homophobic preacher or UKIP think; they're not going to support my causes no matter what arguments I martial

True. However, by saying that their opponents are narrow-minded censors, they may persuade people who would otherwise support your causes. This is especially true if their opponents are in fact narrow-minded censors.

Yes, fine, Gerv has the right to express his opinions about gay marriage, but the rest of us have the right to express our opinions that he is wrong and offensive. Duh.

I agree.

I would not expect them to allow posts saying that Christians are all horrible bigots and should be stripped of their rights.

(Gerv's post did not call for gay people to be stripped of any rights, either, technically).

I guess my point about what Moz might also ban was that there isn't really a value-free stance that Moz can take. You might try utilitarianism, but if Gerv went all utility monster about posts mocking Jesus/Christianity in the way that, say, Muslims might about posts depicting Mohammed, should Moz ban such postings because they cause Gerv a lot of hurt for a small "free speech" gain, even if it's not hurt that someone who doesn't share his position can understand?

I think what some people on the Moz governance list want is for there to be protected classes based on historical disadvantage. It's not clear to me that this is the right answer either.

I think what happened is the right thing: Gerv took the post down because it was distracting from the mission of Mozilla. A policy that doing this is a good thing might work, I guess, though you're at the mercy of generated controversy.