OkCupid’s CEO Has His Own Ugly History Of Donating To Antigay Causes

Well, this is embarrassing.

Last week, OkCupid made a big stink about former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s $1000 donation to Prop 8 in 2008. When Firefox users logged onto the popular dating website, they received the following message:

“We’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal.”

The message then called for Firefox users to consider switching to a different web browser.

It didn’t take long for the company’s PR stunt to go viral. Then after Eich stepped down from his job, OkCupid released a statement saying, “We are pleased that OkCupid’s boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all individuals and partnerships.”

And that’s when things got awkward.

Mother Jones went digging. The magazine learned from the website Uncrunched that OkCupid’s CEO Sam Yagan (who is also the CEO of has his own ugly history of donating to antigay political candidates.

In 2004, Yagan gave $500 to antigay candidate Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah). Cannon served in Congress from 1994 to 2009. During that time, he voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and to prohibit gay adoptions.

Yagan is pleading ignorance. This morning he released a statement that read, in part:

A decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular.

He then went on to try and downplay his donation by saying:

[A] contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage.

He also said he fully supports marriage equality and that he “would not make that contribution again today.”

What do you think? Was it an honest mistake? Or should Yagan be held accountable for his donation?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #okcupid #samyagan stories and more


  • AdrianS

    Peopple make mistakes. For me it’s worse that he donated to a Republican. But even in 10 years, views has changed dramatically. Let’s give the guy the benefit of doubt. Besides, he looks gay to me for some reason.

  • sanfranca1

    I’ll give him a pass.

  • christophespeaks

    What has OKcupid ever done for gay rights? It is a business, and this whole thing was a disingenuous, publicity stunt. Sure, we will slay Eich and destroy his career for a donation he made 8 years ago, when Obama and Hillary Clinton also did not support gay marriage, but give Sam Yagan a pass. – A pass for what ? – To drive business to his site. Yagan does not care about gay rights, Yagan cares about making money $$. This is complete hypocrisy.

  • xzall

    @christophespeaks: Oh the Right’s talking points rears its head again.

    Difference: Obama was against Prop 8 while Eich was not only for Prop 8 , he donated to the cause.

    Obama evolved from his position of being for Civil Unions to his position on being for marriage equality. Before that Obama helped to overturn DADT and stopped defending DOMA.

    Difference: OK Cupid Head: Issues a full statement repudiating his earlier donation and says he’s pro LGBT rights.

    EicH: When asked if he would donate to Prop 8 again in 2014, refused to answer on the grounds it may incriminate him.

    When asked to apologize to the people who were harmed by Prop 8 he refused to do so.

    When asked if he agrees with some of the more repugnant views of Pat Robertson & other anti gay candidates he supported –he again refused to say that he disagreed with them.

    If you’re any kind of thinking person you can see the difference between all these parties. If you’re a person with limited intelligence who’re only capable of repeating your talking points then you can’t.

  • DarkZephyr

    @xzall: you said exactly what I wanted to say but said it better than I would have. Thanks!

  • christophespeaks

    @xzall: Point well taken. I still feel discusted that these companies use politics as a way of marketing and publicity. It is so obviously disingenuous. People need to wake up and realize they are being manipulated.

  • Desert Boy

    I just love how we keep learning who the enemies are. I’ve never heard of OKCupid but I’ll spread the word.

  • Derek Williams

    Whatever OKCupid’s CEO thought before, he doesn’t think it now. If people can never be allowed to change their opinion on something, then how come we have rights now that we didn’t before?

    My opinion on same sex marriage has changed from against to for. I am gay – but since I held that view a decade ago, should I now be damned forever?

    My view was based on opinions I heard expressed by lesbian friends that they were against the whole concept because it connoted man’s hegemony over woman. It was not anti-gay.

    We’ll wear out our mainstream support if we keep bickering over things like this publicly.

    Eich never publicly repudiated his position, but he wasn’t fired, he decided to resign instead of fighting it out. If he had changed his view, then I would be on his side, but by all accounts he has not.

    If Eich were an ordinary employee, I wouldn’t agree with sacking him, on the grounds that everyone is entitled freely to hold any opinion on anything they like. But when you’re head of a company with an equality policy encompassing gender, race and LGBT status, and your publicly known position is directly oppositional to the policy, it makes your position superintending the policy untenable.

    Let’s take an opposite case scenario: let’s say a Catholic organisation wanted to appoint a CEO to administer its schools. They appoint someone well versed in the Holy Bible, who was himself educated at a Catholic school, and even for a while trained at a Catholic seminary – a glove fit for the position. THEN someone discovers that the newly installed CEO supports LGBT equality, not only supports it, but gave a $1,000 donation to a gay rights group campaigning to have the gay marriage ban in their state overturned.

    The Catholic Church is well known for its opposition to same sex marriage, and part of their CEO’s job is to promulgate and administer this policy, for example by ensuring that no homosexuals in same sex marriages are appointed as teachers, and that children in its schools be taught that homosexuals are “intrinsically disordered” according to Catholic doctrine. Does the Catholic CEO get to keep his job?

  • mullinob

    Comparing Eich’s contribution to a cause that was to take rights away from a class of people to Yagan’s to a congressman who was overseeing his industry is a STRETCH – and a flimsy one at that. Shoddy reporting here. I’ll give Yagan a pass on this. Next, please….

  • shelleybear

    OK Stupid.

  • sympanyc

    Market opinions on LGBT rights are changing. If you’re a business, you have to adapt. I honestly don’t think that, in the case of businesses, it’s about being on the right side of history (as it is for politicians). It’s about keeping and growing market share, and that’s OK too. Yagan evolved. Eich didn’t.

  • Cam

    Donating to a congressman whose overall duties effect your business and donating to an issue that’s only reason for being is to directly harm a group of people are not the same thing.

    But nice try.

  • sympanyc

    @Cam: LOL Indeed, they are different, but media outlets will try. They have to. As long as they too can make the difference.

  • casey

    Leave it.

  • wpewen

    Yeah, give him a pass in the name of “magic of the marketplace.” As long as it’s making the company money they’re in favor of it. This gets old.
    If you are gay and were previously against gay marriage all I’ll ask is WHY?

  • walterhpdx

    These two issues are so different, they’re not even in the same timezone.

    When you give to an elected official – specifically someone in the House of Representatives – you’re giving them money to represent you on a wide range of issues. Congresscritters vote on everything from naming post offices to Constitutional amendments and cast hundreds of votes per year on a varied range of topics. Do you think that the CEO of OKCupid gave that money with a stipulation, “Outlaw the gays!”? Nope – he didn’t.

    When you give to a specific cause, you’re saying, “I believe in your cause and I want to make it the rule of the land. Have some money to make it happen.”

    Totally different things. Thanks for trying, and thanks for playing, though!

  • sympanyc

    @wpewen: Our buying power gives us a voice on that front as well. You wouldn’t have seen Wells Fargo, Ikea, Target, Gap, Chevrolet, Avis, Dell, Apple, Google, Microsoft or many others (look at HTC’s Equality Index) supporting us without buying power. How is that old?

  • sympanyc

    Whoops, HRC’s Equality Index (don’t know about HTC)


    I guess the gay mafia should cool off until all facts are known. I knew Match.Com was sort of iffy, but I didn’t know they owned OKCupid. Maybe they should take a step back and make sure ALL their executives are on the Equality Train.

  • atlas

    Did Manhunt possibly have a larger impact on Eich’s fall? Or PC Magazine? Or c|net? Or any other of the industry blogs, magazines, and zines?

    Yes, OkCupid had some impact, but 70,000? Someone may be giving more credit than is due.

  • Throbert McGee

    @wpewen: “If you are gay and were previously against gay marriage all I’ll ask is WHY?”

    I am gay and I would like to see “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” with broad and comprehensive protections available in all 50 states and fully recognized by the federal government — but I am STILL somewhat against gay Marriage using “the M-word,” and I’m happy to tell you why.

    Like many gay people, I get tired of explaining to clueless straights that homosexuals are not simply heterosexuals who’ve developed a bad habit of sodomy the way others start smoking cigarettes. I also get tired of answering questions about “who’s the husband and who’s the wife” in same-sex relationships.

    So why on earth would I be eager to embrace a word that has been so deeply entwined with male/female relationships for so long? Of course, I don’t mean the word “marriage” so much as the concept — in Russian, for instance, the actual word is brak, but “brak” and “marriage” are CONCEPTUALLY identical.

    And to be clear, the problem for me is not so much that these words have always represented heterosexual unions, but that they have always represented heterogeneous unions — the bringing together of two unlikes to make a whole. Which is to say, “marriage” means “Mars + Venus” or “yin + yang”.

    Whereas what we gays and lesbians aspire to in our own relationships is “Mars + Mars”, “Venus + Venus”, “yin + yin”, “yang + yang”.

    So if there was ever a case in which “Separate But Equal” actually makes rational sense, this is it!

    Mind you, I’m not going to set myself on fire in protest if the state I live in eventually votes for “Same-Sex Marriage” rather than “Same-Sex Civil Unions” (currently, it bans both).

    But nonetheless, “Marriage” is not what I aspire to; I don’t think that “Domestic Partnership” laws (if they’re sufficiently strong) make gays into “second-class citizens”; and I personally thought that most of the LGBT reaction to Prop 8 in California was a bunch of ridiculous and maudlin soap-opera hysterics. If we are going to insist that “Gay people demand the Dignity® of marriage and will settle for nothing less,” it’s probably a good idea to avoid the extremely undignified behavior of dainty princesses who can feel a single dried pea through 40 layers of mattresses.

  • Cam

    One donated to a powerful congressman who had business interest reasons and not specifically for any gay reason.

    The other one donated to an issue that had only one reason for existence, and that was to attack gay people.

    The first one made public statements supporting gay rights.

    The second one would not state that he had changed his opinions about gay rights.

    There is no contest here and the attempt to try to draw a parallel is just sad.

  • kevininbuffalo

    @Throbert McGee: @Throbert McGee: I understand that in France anyone, gay or straight can enter a civil union with all the perks of marriage. There are now more civil unions there than marriages. Maybe we need to think outside the box a little.

  • Throbert McGee

    “it’s probably a good idea to avoid the extremely undignified behavior of dainty princesses who can feel a single dried pea through 40 layers of mattresses.”

    Speaking of things we really ought not to imitate if we want other people to respect us and recognize our dignity:

    Roy Kinnear: Veruca, sweetheart, angel — they haven’t shelled a peanut in there since Monday! They’ve been shelling flamin’ chocolate bars from dawn to dusk!

    Julie Dawn Cole: MAKE ‘EM WORK NIGHTS!!

    The South Park episode “Death Camp of Tolerance”, in which Lemmiwinks the Gerbil was introduced to viewers (and subsequently introduced into a man’s rectum), is also recommendable for examples of behaviors — viz., those of schoolteacher Mr. Garrison — that shouldn’t be imitated by real-life gay people.

  • NodrogUK

    All of this hysterical condemnation of people who opposed gay rights, gay marriage or gay adoption years (or decades) ago, and even contributed to like minded people running for public office years ago, is really becoming quite tiresome.
    Be happy that gay rights has got as far as it has despite these historical efforts of opposition.
    Many people who opposed gay rights in the past have softened their views, and some now actively agree with equality for all sections of our modern society.
    If you feel you must go after people who oppose your LGBT agenda, then restrict your activities to those who are presently engaged in hateful and vitriolic campaigns, lest the whole business of LGBT rights becomes anathema to Joe Public, who will tire easily of your incessant whinging!

  • sympanyc

    @kevininbuffalo: LOL I’ll forgo Throbert’s reply to you (I think ), and just say that common-law marriage in the U.S. is similar if not equal to civil unions in France. However, I think that the U.S. is more religious, hence church marriages (even though France’s Catholics were very vocal in the opposition to same sex marriage there). Anyway, enough tangents on my part. What about you?

  • sympanyc

    @NodrogUK: I agree. To demand the right to fire either CEOs for current or past views is not far removed from the right to fire LGBT employees without cause. Are we just as bigoted as they are or do we believe in something better? And as much as some may hate the commercial implications, this is where CEOs have to “evolve”.

  • Throbert McGee

    And on the subject of drama-queenishness, I was struck by the wording used on OKCupid:

    If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal

    Attention morons at OKStupid: Despite what some of the more high-strung gay activists claimed, the Prop 8 campaign to which Brendan Eich gave $1000 did not make anyone’s love-relationships “illegal” in California. For that matter, Prop 8 did not strip any citizens of their rights in any substantive and damaging way, since California’s very comprehensive and legally binding “domestic partnership” law was not affected or even under threat. All that Prop 8 did was to make it illegal for the state of California to use the word “marriage” in documents and forms relating to same-sex domestic partnerships.

    When you say that “if Brendan Eich had his way, same-sex relationships would be illegal,” you are merely encouraging these drama-queens masquerading as civil-rights activists to believe their own delusional hyperbole.

  • inbama

    Instead of Marriage Equality and ENDA, firing one fool has been our public face for over two weeks now.

    Meanwhile, the same gay blogs that got hits encouraging our outrage over Eich now are getting hits as we defend ourselves over the outrage from his firing.

    Media is not a substitute for responsible goal-directed activism, and not every battle – even when you are right – is worth engaging.

  • sympanyc

    @inbama: This was a brilliant, viral marketing stunt by OKCupid. They now have a feelgood image and likely more subscriptions, which is what they wanted.

    In your stream of thought, the more Marriage Equality, ENDA and other equal rights measures that affect us are implemented, and the more we can assert of ability to hit businesses where it matters, then these single events – whether from these folks, some evangelical nutcase or mommas afraid we’re going to sign up their children – will just make us roll our eyes and move on.

  • Throbert McGee

    “you are merely encouraging these drama-queens masquerading as civil-rights activists to believe their own delusional hyperbole.”

    And now, for some reason, I’m reminded of dialogue from The Ring — which I might be slightly misquoting, because I haven’t seen that movie a jillion times since childhood, like Willy Wonka:

    Mother: That girl Samara isn’t in the dark place anymore. We set her free.
    Young Son:Why did you help her? You weren’t supposed to help her! She’s not going to stop — she’ll never stop.

    There are certain times when self-respecting gay people need to say “Oh, suck it up and deal and STFU, you pafe’ic crybaby” to others in our own community, including some of the LGBT activists who claim to represent us, rather than unwisely encouraging their misbehavior with displays of compassion.

    The Wikipedia article on the Danegeld custom and its metaphoric legacy is also worth reading carefully. Though most LGBT activists are honest and do valuable work, there is a segment of them that are — in my opinion — essentially engaging in a form of extortion racket that is morally disgraceful even though it might be perfectly legal. In this case, these extortionists may have worked hand-in-hand with OKCupid, who saw it as a good PR stunt. But as Kipling wrote:

    “…once you have paid him the Danegeld,
    You never get rid of the Dane.”

  • woodin

    @Derek Williams,

    Well said, further you comment below could not be more true….

    “We’ll wear out our mainstream support if we keep bickering over things like this publicly.

  • Tackle

    @Derek Williams: Good points made. We need to just lay the f?ck off sometimes. And if we’re going to go by someone’s past support, donations, voting and beliefs, then we ( LGBTQ) people need to look for someone else besides Hillary Clinton to vote for, considering that she was once against same sex marriage, and equal rights for LGBTQ people. This type of behavior makes us look bad. Like we are some unforgettable, unforgiving, bitter group, who wants to hold a grudge, and never allow, or accept that people grow and do change.

  • TomMc

    Almost every year, since 2005 or so, OkCupid has done a site-wide April Fools joke. The fact that their Firefox message appeared on that day (and that originally they’d spelled Internet Explorer as Internet ExPLODER) led me to believe that that was their one for this year.

  • Cam

    The headline is actually a lie.

    He didn’t donate to “Anti-gay causes” he donated to a congressman who had ties to business interests etc..

    Why is the article purposely trying to misrepresent? Queerty and this author have now written 3 posts trying to defend Mozilla and it’s CEO and this misrepresentation seems to be another attempt.

  • DuMaurier


    The situations are different but I wouldn’t put them in different “timezones”. What this guy did is the equivalent of an equality supporter (or LGBT person) voting Republican because of the party’s economic, defense and foreign policy planks, while “disagreeing” on the issue of marriage equality (and/or other equality issues)

  • malibujd44

    Mr Eich didn’t just make one bad donation he made many over the years to right wing wackos.

  • hephaestion

    Sam Yagan is on our side now. Why on earth would anyone care about a donation made 10 years ago when he stated that he would not support the homophobic schmuck today? Yagan is a good guy. We should only be thanking him.

  • Curtispsf

    Ok…I confess. A long time ago, I spent the night having dinner at the house of an antigay evangelical born again (and again) so-called Christian.
    He has since seen the error of his ways and is now a Presbyterian, which we all call Christianity lite. He even said he would come to my wedding if my bf and decide to go there.

    That man was my brother. Moral here: “No one’s perfect. Judge people by the company they keep now. There’s always a skeleton or two…or more in EVERYBODY’s closet”.

  • Black Pegasus

    The Mafia does not want excuses…

    He must step down! The Gay Mafia has spoken.

  • Brian

    He didn’t donate to a cause. He donated to a candidate. There’s a difference. Your headline is inaccurate.

    He still sounds a little sketchy, and he may very well be anti-gay, but you won’t win an argument with outright lies. This is shoddy journalism.

  • TheMarc

    @Cam: Stop being sensible and sane! Some people here (mainly Queerty “writers”) hate that!

  • matt1919

    It really is a glass house.

    So Yagan contributes $500 to R-Utah Chris Cannon’s campaign on October of 2004. Elections are in November, one of the items on the ballot is Utah Amendment 3: an amendment which states that marriage is only between a man and woman.

    Supposing I accept that Yagan, an individual with a degree from Stanford and Harvard, couldn’t figure out what position a Republican from Utah would take on gay marriage. Am I also to believe he didn’t hear about this amendment being on the ballot during the same election cycle?

    I would really be inclined to think that he really didn’t care about gay rights and marriage because he was looking to make money for his company at that point. It was not a priority, not that he ‘didn’t realize”. It’s a priority for him now, but it sure looks like a little grandstanding.

  • hrnpip

    I’m willing to take him at his word. And keep in mind that there’s a big difference between the two. Whether or not Yagan was supporting all the positions of the candidate he supported, he seems to be very clearly stating that he is not anti-gay, whereas, Eich had the opportunity to clarify or change his position but did not say his position had changed but was not going to get caught restating is anti-gay position. On the face of it, Yagan is in a more supportive place now while Eich is NOT.

  • Maude

    Please let us not go over that lemming cliff of following those who would make “Gustopos” of all of us.

    Many straights who were against us, are now with us because they’ve met and spoke with us, and found us not to be the silly contemptible ‘faggots’ they previously thought all of us were.

    We all have the right of freedom of speech, it’s that right of free speech that has brought us this far…Should we now deny that same right to those who support an issue that we do not?

    If we deny any right whatsoever to any person, in the end we will have done to our selves that which we have fought so long for, for ourselves.

  • denvermtnbiker

    Unless you’re going to insist on everyone being single issue voters, I don’t think this is at all comparable. His explanation that Cannon was chair of the committee overseeing his industry seems like a pretty reasonable explanation, even if he know Cannon disagreed with him on marriage equality, which he likely did.

  • hrnpip

    @Maude: The right of free speech is not the right of consequence-free speech. Nobody is being denied their right to speak freely about any position. But there is this sense that “free speech” is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It’s not. A very big part of enjoying the right to free speech is that EVERYONE has that same right, and if you say something I disagree with, I have the very same right to call you on it and to hold you accountable. Only the government is actually forbidden to exact consequences on people for their protected speech. Anyone else can, and should, hold anyone else accountable for what they say.

  • Cam

    @Maude: said…

    “We all have the right of freedom of speech, it’s that right of free speech that has brought us this far…Should we now deny that same right to those who support an issue that we do not?
    If we deny any right whatsoever to any person, in the end we will have done to our selves that which we have fought so long for, for ourselves.


    Maude, for the 100th time on here. The 1st amendment says that the govt. won’t arrest you for speaking your mind. It does not say that other people have to agree with you. The CEO of Mozilla said what he said and did what he did. And other people reacted by not wanting to do business with him. His right to free speech was never violated.

    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from others not liking what you have to say. It is a dangerous argument to claim it is, and usually made by right wingers which actually makes me suspicious of your post.

  • Maude


    Hrnpip & cam.

    Okay, I see your point, and concede. However, do you see mine?

    Can you not understand that the weight of Mozilla’s hostile reaction because of a donation made years ago in favor of his belief that opposes gay marriage is like shooting off a canon to kill a fly?!

    The unintended consequences may, in the end, result in the exact opposite in many of each of our endeavors to be recognized as individuals with perfectly normal personal desires… as are theirs.

  • Cam


    Hi Maude, I think that my issue is, what exactly was this supposedly hostile reaction? All I saw was a bunch of people saying…

    Hmm, this guy paid money to attack us, I don’t want to do business with a company that would put him in a leadership position even though his beliefs were public knowledge. Additionally half the board of Mozilla resigned over it and Mozilla employees expressed fear because he refused to say he no longer felt that way and they did not feel safe in their jobs or environment since the CEO makes policy.

    That isn’t overkill, He spent money, to strip civil rights away from a group of people, and yet we are expected to think that not wanting to do business with him is an over the top hostile reaction? I think it is am amazing comment considering that we don’t even have full civil rights yet, and yet this multi-millionaire unrepentant bigot who refuses to say what his bliefs are not is the victim and his employees are supposedly the attackers?

  • sympanyc

    @Maude: But, to Cam’s point. It may be that Mozilla’s board was concerned with losing market share from the LGBT community or the increasing number of straights who support us. Eich had the chance to clarify his position. He decided not to. The board saw the reaction not only of the LGBT community in general but of Mozilla employees in particular, and reacted. Mr. Eich decided to leave. No one forced anyone to stone Mr. Eich, except maybe for Yagan who saw an opportunity to attract market share and spread brand awareness. I’m not sure that this is about censorship. It’s about buying power.

  • Captain Obvious

    As much as I personally hate and disagree with homophobes I feel like this personal name and shame campaign stuff when it involves separate businesses is all wrong and silly.

    Maybe some don’t understand it because they don’t own businesses. But business is separate from personal life. Business involves other people than your personal life.

    The internet and social media don’t seem to know how these things work or how to handle it.

    If you’re attacking someone personally because of their own personal beliefs then do that… separately. You don’t go after the business just because they are employed by or even own it. It’s a separate entity with numerous employees many of whom have absolutely nothing to do with what you’re upset about.

    That’s the reason why both straight and gay people laugh at these boycotts. It comes of as queens bitching with no understanding of how things actually work.

    And you’re not hurting their wallets, you’re giving them free advertising. If anything they probably love your whining about them. OKCupid was falling off, making no real progress anymore, and wasn’t being thought about. Now they just got a free boost of advertising without spending a dime.

    Good job, bloggers.

  • sympanyc

    @Captain Obvious: Eich decided to leave. Although his board was nervous, the reports don’t indicate that he was pushed out. I’d be curious to find out though why he decided to step down. I have to admit that he should not have stepped down if only the outside community did what they do best (name and shame people). Honestly though, his PR was not great. However, many of his company’s employees also became adamant that he should resign (and as far as I know that’s a great part of what the media picked up on). That definitely would make a board of directors even more nervous.

    As far as Yagan is concerned, if his targeted clientele was mostly anti-gay Christian right consumers, I have no doubt that he would have played that card. It’s opportunistic (but it’s nice to see that we have the buying power).

  • patricklee5150

    I’m for giving him a pass….and come on, people…nothing wrong with being fair. Haven’t we all made bad choices in the past?

  • tricky ricky

    I don’t think it is even close to the same thing.

  • Cam

    @Captain Obvious:

    I’ll break down your comment, and make it even more obvious.

    Blacks should shop at stores owned by Klan members,

    Women should shop at stores owned by people advocating for legal rape,

    And gays should shop at stores owned by people trying to make our relationships illegal because gee, business is separate from personal lives.

    That is the direct meaning of your comment. That even through they are attacking all aspects of our lives, we should be shoveling money in their pockets or else we’re the bullies.

    I can’t tell if you are a right wing troll in disguise or just a delusional freshman in college in your third week of your first Phych 101 class.

  • isafakir

    give the guy a break. he is doing business. you can’t donate to more than half of congress or the senate and 3 quarters of politicians without coming across somebody’s homophobic trail. it is ancient history. he didn’t donate in order to deny our humanity. i believe him.

  • Maude

    CAM…If you can’t see the true intentions beyond the meaning behind the words, then you should not be engaging in honest discourse that involves appreciation of compassionate attempts to at least trying to understand that there are other points of view that come from the same side.

    The stringent attitude of one way street awareness of this or any issue brings with it, the uncomfortable feeling that the discourse has taken a turn toward the dreaded, “My way, or the highway”, nonsensical, illogical and often hypocritical, and offensive zombie-like close-mindedness that ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’ blather that destroys any sincere attempt at intelligent conversation.

  • Cam


    So Maude, now your statement is that we should not look at what your words actually say, we should somehow be a mind reader and know what the meaning beyond what you wrote is.

    So then what you are saying is either this.

    Your words were accurate and therefore I did understand what you meant.


    Your words were not accurate and therefore the point you were making with them was not valid. Please let us know which.

  • Throbert McGee

    CAM…If you can’t see the true intentions beyond the meaning behind the words, then you should not be engaging in honest discourse

    The only amendment I’d make to your comment, Maude, is: “you should not be engaging nor be engaged by others in honest discourse…”

    Fool me twice, shame on me, and all that.

    Your words were accurate and therefore I did understand what you meant.


    Your words were not accurate and therefore the point you were making with them was not valid.

    A third possibility is: “Maude’s words were accurate and her point was valid, but some people take bizarre glee in trampling pearls underfoot.”

  • Throbert McGee

    And a fourth possibility is “Maude’s words were accurate and therefore most people with at least intermediate literacy skills (probably including most ESL learners) would understand what she meant, but some people are happier to behave like morons than to say publically “Well, I see your point, and I stand corrected.”

Comments are closed.