Three things first: I am fully in favor of legally recognizing same-sex marriages. I like onions (and not just because I went to college in Walla Walla). And I have not seen the original exchange of posts/comments being reported here, so what follows is speculation on my part. This last is important, because context in online discourse can often be extremely tricky to read. That said: I think I can construct a context in which the anti-onion acquaintance in that exchange has a legitimate point -- and that being the case, I think it's worth looking at that possible context.
My first assumption is that the "elsewhere" referred to is a Webspace -- blog, LJ, what have you -- belonging to or hosted by the acquaintance. To borrow a metaphor from way, way back in 'Net time (specifically, from GEnie's Science Fiction RoundTable), one can consider such a space as its author's "virtual living room". Both back on GEnie and on the modern Web, cultures of courtesy have developed regarding what's polite, what's borderline, and what's socially unacceptable in terms of posting in someone's virtual living room. On GEnie, Susan Shwartz wielded the Sacred Salmon, on his blog, John Scalzi periodically invokes the Mallet of Loving Correction, and on Making Light, one can get disemvoweled.
Second: while I am fully in favor of legally recognizing same-sex marriages, I also believe in freedom of religion. That is, I believe that a given church has the right to decide to determine that among its members and on its own premises, religious marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples. The right of free association being what it is, it's necessarily legal -- and morally right -- to allow like-minded people freely to associate, even when we don't agree with them. [Note that associating is one thing; action is another. If you're the Ku Klux Klan, you can have all the lodge meetings you want among yourselves, but the moment you go out and commit hate crimes, you're toast.] So while it absolutely should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, it would be wrong (and tacky) for a same-sex couple to demand that their marriage ceremony be performed in a church or by a minister that opposes such marriages on religious grounds.
What this means in the physical world is that, as much as I may advocate same-sex marriage (on civil and/or religious grounds), I won't generally walk into a fundamentalist church and start preaching those views to its members on their premises -- and even if I'm invited into such an institution, in the event that I accept the invitation I will make an effort to be polite while I'm there.
And what it means on the Web is that, in a given personally hosted Webspace, I'll generally try to abide by the culture of courtesy for that Webspace -- which may mean going elsewhere to have discussions on certain issues or regarding certain subjects. In the specific context of the onion exchange, I don't know whether the acquaintance may have meant to specifically call out the onions as onions or to refer back to the onions-as-gays analogy. I don't have a good handle on the acquaintance's tone, so as to judge how much unstated hyperbole might have been in play. I also don't know how the Webspace in question normally handles sensitive or politically charged conversations, or how often they may occur in that space. However -- in the specific context of going into someone else's "virtual living room", whether with virtual onion breath or with a line of conversation the host regards as provocative -- I think the acquaintance/host isn't necessarily wrong to point out a breach of courtesy, and I would not necessarily read a post to that effect as a post expressing an opinion on the larger issue(s) in play.
Again, I'm imposing a hypothetical context on an online conversation I haven't actually seen. But given the countervailing history you cite, I'd want to be very sure of the actual context before making any long-term decisions about cutting off connections.
no subject
My first assumption is that the "elsewhere" referred to is a Webspace -- blog, LJ, what have you -- belonging to or hosted by the acquaintance. To borrow a metaphor from way, way back in 'Net time (specifically, from GEnie's Science Fiction RoundTable), one can consider such a space as its author's "virtual living room". Both back on GEnie and on the modern Web, cultures of courtesy have developed regarding what's polite, what's borderline, and what's socially unacceptable in terms of posting in someone's virtual living room. On GEnie, Susan Shwartz wielded the Sacred Salmon, on his blog, John Scalzi periodically invokes the Mallet of Loving Correction, and on Making Light, one can get disemvoweled.
Second: while I am fully in favor of legally recognizing same-sex marriages, I also believe in freedom of religion. That is, I believe that a given church has the right to decide to determine that among its members and on its own premises, religious marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples. The right of free association being what it is, it's necessarily legal -- and morally right -- to allow like-minded people freely to associate, even when we don't agree with them. [Note that associating is one thing; action is another. If you're the Ku Klux Klan, you can have all the lodge meetings you want among yourselves, but the moment you go out and commit hate crimes, you're toast.] So while it absolutely should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, it would be wrong (and tacky) for a same-sex couple to demand that their marriage ceremony be performed in a church or by a minister that opposes such marriages on religious grounds.
What this means in the physical world is that, as much as I may advocate same-sex marriage (on civil and/or religious grounds), I won't generally walk into a fundamentalist church and start preaching those views to its members on their premises -- and even if I'm invited into such an institution, in the event that I accept the invitation I will make an effort to be polite while I'm there.
And what it means on the Web is that, in a given personally hosted Webspace, I'll generally try to abide by the culture of courtesy for that Webspace -- which may mean going elsewhere to have discussions on certain issues or regarding certain subjects. In the specific context of the onion exchange, I don't know whether the acquaintance may have meant to specifically call out the onions as onions or to refer back to the onions-as-gays analogy. I don't have a good handle on the acquaintance's tone, so as to judge how much unstated hyperbole might have been in play. I also don't know how the Webspace in question normally handles sensitive or politically charged conversations, or how often they may occur in that space. However -- in the specific context of going into someone else's "virtual living room", whether with virtual onion breath or with a line of conversation the host regards as provocative -- I think the acquaintance/host isn't necessarily wrong to point out a breach of courtesy, and I would not necessarily read a post to that effect as a post expressing an opinion on the larger issue(s) in play.
Again, I'm imposing a hypothetical context on an online conversation I haven't actually seen. But given the countervailing history you cite, I'd want to be very sure of the actual context before making any long-term decisions about cutting off connections.