Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by NCommander on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the i-guess-they'll-unfriend-mozilla dept.
Sir Finkus and keplr writes:

The controversy around Mozilla's new CEO Brendan Eich continues. Eich made a personal $1000 donation to California's Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in 2008. Now, dating site OkCupid has started redirecting Firefox users to a page explaining Eich's views against marriage equality, and asking users to switch to IE, Chrome, or Opera.

The page states:

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. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

Visitors are then provided links to alternative browsers, or they can continue to the site by clicking a hyperlink at the bottom of the page.

Related Stories

A Pressing Question: Why Did You Lurk? 279 comments
We've gotten some incredible feedback regards to the moderation system and the karma system, and trust me, its not going into /dev/null; I'll have a writeup done by the weekend. However, I've noticed something today that made me sit back, and think for awhile. Our community is healthy and vibrant, and we're far more cohesive as a group than we ever were on the other site. Furthermore, our users are significantly more active here than the other site. Almost all of us are from the other site, but there's a huge difference between us and them.

I can sum up the difference in four words: We ARE a community.

While many of us decried the other site calling us an audience, I'm not sure I can say I was a part of the Slashdot community. I read articles, and comments, but I hadn't moderated (or even logged in) on the other site for years. This wasn't always true; I'm UID 700139 on the other site (registered sometime in 2003), and I was fairly active until 2009. Then I stopped. I didn't even post on the Audience Responses post. I've talked to others on IRC, and it turns out I'm not alone; a LOT of people who are active here were permanent lurkers on the other site.

I need to understand why to keep us a community, and to prevent us from just becoming a passive audience. If you're going to post on any story, let it be this one, and tell me your story. We need to know.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by oodaloop on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:17AM

    by oodaloop (1982) <{jkaminoff} {at} {zoho.com}> on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:17AM (#24024)

    I'm always thrilled to see people stand up for what they beleive in, whether I agree with them or not (I happen to support gay rights, and human rights in general). It just doesn't seem to happen too often.

    --
    Many Bothans died to bring you this comment.
    • (Score: 1) by yarp on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:34AM

      by yarp (2665) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:34AM (#24032)

      Whose actions are you thrilled to see, Brendan Eich's or OkCupid's?

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by NullPtr on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:59AM

        by NullPtr (3786) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:59AM (#24048) Journal

        I'm guessing, given the content of his message, that they're impressed that people are standing up to ignorant bigotry based presumably on outdated, entirely fictional belief systems.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:38PM

          by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:38PM (#24079) Homepage Journal

          There are secular arguments against gay marriage.

          http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-secul ar-arguments-against-gay-marriage [debate.org]

          --
          I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
          • (Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:16PM

            by umafuckitt (20) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:16PM (#24123)

            Secular vs religious arguments against gay marriage is a meaningless distinction. The argument being "secular" gives it no more credence. Atheists are quite capable of being narrow minded and intolerant of others. I read the arguments on the page you link to and they sound no different to what the Christian right spout.

            Another reason why the distinction is meaningless is that religions are invented by people and have whatever properties their adherents choose to give them. There's no rule of the universe saying that religions have to be against homosexuality. There's tons of stuff in the Bible which Christians ignore because they choose to do so. They don't avoid pork and shell fish, for instance, which their book tells them not to eat in Leviticus 11. Mark 10 says divorce==adultery and it shouldn't be done, yet divorce in the US is higher than it's every been and the US is a predominantly Christian country. So in any case Christians pick and choose what to believe based on convenience and fancy. There's nothing whatsoever stopping them from applying this selectivity to not obstructing equal rights for gay people. But choose to obstruct because they're narrow-minded and intolerant, just like the secular people on that webpage.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:01PM

              by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:01PM (#24154) Homepage Journal

              I only mentioned it because the parent post referred to "...ignorant bigotry based presumably on outdated, entirely fictional belief systems", which I equated to religion.

              Just for the record, I believe that marriage is a legal institution carried out by two or more consenting adults. I don't care what sexes or sexual orientations are involved. Hell, I don't even care what species are involved, as long as it can be shown that all prospective partners are capable of abstract thought and can be shown to understand what a marriage is and that it's what they all want. (I still have childhood fantasies of one day getting married to at least one, hot, green-skinned and/or green-blooded woman -- or women -- from other planets. Ignore for the moment that I am already married to a mere Earthling.)

              However, for the sake of argument, let's just suppose that there could be logical, rational beliefs to support the idea of marriage being defined as a legal union between one man and one woman. I think the following might qualify.

              Argument for Traditional Definition of Marriage

              Societally, marriage is an institution centered around procreation and child-rearing in a family setting. A family consisting of a father, a mother, and some kids provides (with some variation) a good means to produce healthy, happy, and responsible young adults, and thus provides the best chances for the continuation of a civil society. While other types of family units can produce the desired result, the traditional family unit has an (arguably) higher probability of doing so and has a better-documented track record; its long-term effects on societal growth and development are better understood than alternative family arrangements. Our society thus awards special priviliges to traditional families: tax incentives, insurance policies, legal protections, etc. The word marriage, in our society, has thus taken on an expanded meaning that implies a number of additional characteristics, rights, and privileges. Applying this expanded definition of marriage to alternative family units is therefore undesirable.

              Wow, that was difficult to write. Personally, I disagree with most of it... but I can see why some people would hold this view.

              Now, someone please provide the counter-argument!

              --
              I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
              • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:39PM

                by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:39PM (#24203) Homepage Journal

                Ha, today's inspiration from /usr/games/fortune...

                Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.

                --
                I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hatta on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:27PM

                by hatta (879) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:27PM (#24245)

                Societally, marriage is an institution centered around procreation and child-rearing in a family setting.

                False, because a very many couples have children outside of marriage, and very many have marriages without children.

                A family consisting of a father, a mother, and some kids provides (with some variation) a good means to produce healthy, happy, and responsible young adults

                "A" means perhaps, but by no means the only means, or even the best means.

                While other types of family units can produce the desired result, the traditional family unit has an (arguably) higher probability of doing so

                Empirically false. Children of same sex couples suffer no disadvantages compared to married couples, save for the bigotry they face.

                its long-term effects on societal growth and development are better understood than alternative family arrangements

                Except that the "traditional" nuclear family was a 20th century invention. People have been living together and raising families in more ways than I can count for as long as humanity has existed. In particular, the idea of marrying for love was radical in the 19th century.

                Our society thus awards special priviliges to traditional families: tax incentives, insurance policies, legal protections

                Even if we assumed that everything you wrote above was true, which it's not, nothing you have said justifies this. What you need to prove is not that "traditional" marriage is better than same-sex marriage. You need to prove that unwed same-sex couples are better than married same-sex couples.

                You are arguing as if "traditional" marriage is an alternative to same-sex marriage. It is not.

                The word marriage, in our society, has thus taken on an expanded meaning that implies a number of additional characteristics, rights, and privileges.

                The one true statement in this argument. However it has nothing to do with proving your thesis. In fact, that marriage provides so many rights and privileges makes marriage equality even more important.

                Applying this expanded definition of marriage to alternative family units is therefore undesirable.

                Non-sequitur. Even if I assume everything above this statement to be true, you still haven't proven this. What actual undesirable consequences should we expect to come from same-sex marriage? Nothing in your argument speaks to this.

                So, I suppose there's a secular argument against same-sex marriage. That is, if you consider lies, fallacies, and non-sequiturs to compose an argument. Might as well say that there's a secular argument that the moon is made of cheese.

                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:27PM

                  by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:27PM (#24293) Homepage Journal

                  One thing I should note before I get into the reply: I am assuming the US here, as it's what I know the best. Some of it may or may not apply to other countries or societies.

                  Societally, marriage is an institution centered around procreation and child-rearing in a family setting.

                  False, because a very many couples have children outside of marriage, and very many have marriages without children.

                  Couples choosing to have children outside of marriage doesn't disprove the original statement.

                  The trend for childless marriages (in the US) has been increasing every decade since the 50s, but the relative percentages are still in the minority. This doesn't disprove the original statement. (Note: this second part about childless marriages is definitely open to debate, as this is not a subject I've ever researched seriously. A quick web search for "trends in childless marriage America" will pull up many sources, and I've only looked at a few of them.)

                  A family consisting of a father, a mother, and some kids provides (with some variation) a good means to produce healthy, happy, and responsible young adults

                  "A" means perhaps, but by no means the only means, or even the best means.

                  Okay, so you agree with this part (because I never said "best").

                  While other types of family units can produce the desired result, the traditional family unit has an (arguably) higher probability of doing so

                  Empirically false. Children of same sex couples suffer no disadvantages compared to married couples, save for the bigotry they face.

                  This is probably the biggest hole in the original argument. However, there seems to be enough conflicting data out there that some may feel justified in choosing the argument they prefer, rather than the one that has the most scientific support. This is one reason I included the parenthetical comment "arguably" in the statement. (Keep in mind that I don't actually believe the statement; I am trying to put myself in the mindset of someone that does.)

                  its long-term effects on societal growth and development are better understood than alternative family arrangements

                  Except that the "traditional" nuclear family was a 20th century invention. People have been living together and raising families in more ways than I can count for as long as humanity has existed. In particular, the idea of marrying for love was radical in the 19th century.

                  I didn't say "nuclear family". You did. I include "extended family" in the "traditional" category. This goes back much further than the 20th century, and by and large, homosexual relationships were not openly acknowledged. The "traditional" family dynamic, which has hundreds of years of history behind it (from Europe to America), is therefore better understood.

                  Our society thus awards special priviliges to traditional families: tax incentives, insurance policies, legal protections

                  Even if we assumed that everything you wrote above was true, which it's not, nothing you have said justifies this. What you need to prove is not that "traditional" marriage is better than same-sex marriage. You need to prove that unwed same-sex couples are better than married same-sex couples.

                  You are arguing as if "traditional" marriage is an alternative to same-sex marriage. It is not.

                  I am not arguing that "traditional" marriage is an alternative to same-sex marriage. I am arguing (for the sake of exploring the argument) that there is no justification to call a same-sex union a "marriage". As evidence, I stated several things above, some of which *are* true and some of which can be supported in an argument but that will be difficult to refute outright. Also, given the point of view that I am arguing from, I don't think I need to "prove" any of the things you said that I need to prove; the burden of proof falls to the supporter of alternative marriage types in US society, given that what they propose to change is US/state law regarding the definition and legal treatment of marriage.

                  The word marriage, in our society, has thus taken on an expanded meaning that implies a number of additional characteristics, rights, and privileges.

                  The one true statement in this argument. However it has nothing to do with proving your thesis. In fact, that marriage provides so many rights and privileges makes marriage equality even more important.

                  You agree with the statement, but disagree that it has anything to do with the argument. However, I believe you are mistaken here because the argument started with a proposal to change current laws that deal specifically with those "additional characteristics, rights, and privileges". Rightly or wrongly, they already exist. Prove to me that the proposal to change those laws to promote "marriage equality" is the right thing for society to do. (I think the best argument here might be based on fundamental human rights; it's why my actual opinion is so at odds with the persona I've adopted for this discussion.)

                  Applying this expanded definition of marriage to alternative family units is therefore undesirable.

                  Non-sequitur. Even if I assume everything above this statement to be true, you still haven't proven this. What actual undesirable consequences should we expect to come from same-sex marriage? Nothing in your argument speaks to this.

                  Again, the burden of proof is on those wanting to change the laws. However, I agree that a good argument against allowing same-sex marriages should probably include some details as to why they would be less desirable than traditional marriages. As it reads now, the argument I've put forth comes across as "change is bad". I'll have to think about it.

                  So, I suppose there's a secular argument against same-sex marriage. That is, if you consider lies, fallacies, and non-sequiturs to compose an argument. Might as well say that there's a secular argument that the moon is made of cheese.

                  The conclusion may be a fallacy, and the argument itself may be imperfect, but it is not based on lies. It is, however, based on a particular "spin" for facts and opinions that can be backed up with some kind of evidence. Whether that evidence outweighs any evidence to the contrary is an open question. As for the "moon is made of cheese" comment, I'll just say that I know that to be false; the moon is actually made of heartbreak, tears, and broken dreams.

                  And again, one final time: I am not against same-sex marriage. The argument I proposed is for discussion purposes only.

                  • (Score: 1) by hatta on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:36PM

                    by hatta (879) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:36PM (#24456)

                    And again, one final time: I am not against same-sex marriage. The argument I proposed is for discussion purposes only.

                    And it's a fun discussion too, thanks.

                    I am not arguing that "traditional" marriage is an alternative to same-sex marriage.

                    You are putting forth traditional marriage the best way to raise children, and using that as a reason not to allow same-sex couples to get married. If you don't think same-sex marriage is going to prevent traditional couples from marrying and having children, how exactly does that argument work?

                    As evidence, I stated several things above, some of which *are* true and some of which can be supported in an argument but that will be difficult to refute outright.

                    Like I said, even if those things above are true, I don't actually see an argument here against same-sex marriage. I'm even willing to allow for the sake of argument that heteronormative couples produce happier and healthier offspring. Why does that matter to a gay couple in love?

                    the burden of proof falls to the supporter of alternative marriage types in US society

                    The burden of proof as to whether same-sex couples should get married falls solely on those couples, and they are the sole judge as to whether that burden has been met. I don't get a say in whether you get married, you don't get a say in whether I get married, unless we're marrying each other. In which case we're the only people who get a say.

                    (I think the best argument here might be based on fundamental human rights; it's why my actual opinion is so at odds with the persona I've adopted for this discussion.)

                    Right, the only way to even come close to making a secular argument against same-sex marriage is to ignore fundamental principles like equal protection under the law. In other words, there is actually no honest, informed, and well-meaning argument against same-sex marriage. Every opponent of same-sex marriage is either disingenuous, ignorant, or malicious. Just like every opponent of interracial marriage.

                    However, I agree that a good argument against allowing same-sex marriages should probably include some details as to why they would be less desirable than traditional marriages.

                    No, a good argument against same-sex marriage would include details as to why they would be less desirable than unwed same-sex couples. Traditional marriage is not an option for unwed same-sex couples, so it's entirely irrelevant.

                    • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:28PM

                      by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:28PM (#24470) Homepage Journal

                      I am not arguing that "traditional" marriage is an alternative to same-sex marriage.

                      You are putting forth traditional marriage the best way to raise children, and using that as a reason not to allow same-sex couples to get married. If you don't think same-sex marriage is going to prevent traditional couples from marrying and having children, how exactly does that argument work?

                      I didn't mean to say that allowing same-sex marriage would prevent traditional couples from marrying and having children, just as I wasn't saying "traditional" marriage is an alternative for people that would rather be in same-sex marriages. The argument is implying that homosexually-oriented people shouldn't marry or have kids at all, whether that's in a same-sex relationship with someone they love or a traditional marriage with someone they just like or tolerate.

                      Okay, persona off for now: that particular implication is really bothering me. I'm not sure I meant to say that, so now I don't know if I'm just seeing something that arose incidentally, or if it's something that my subconscious inserted while I was playing the role. I think it was incidental, but it bothers me that it might not be.

                      I have to think about it. I'll get back to this in a while. (Sorry)

                      --
                      I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
                • (Score: 1) by tomtomtom on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:19AM

                  by tomtomtom (340) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:19AM (#24536)

                  Empirically false. Children of same sex couples suffer no disadvantages compared to married couples, save for the bigotry they face.

                  Much as we'd all love to live in a world where children didn't get teased, bullied or worse because of their family background, this seems like wishful thinking to me. It also seems like wishful thinking to believe that even the subset which is down to some children having parents in a same sex relationship will go away any time soon. Therefore it's rather disingenuous to brush off what could be quite a serious problem for a child so lightly - you need to start with the world as it is, not as you would like it to be.

                  None of that is to say that government should act to prevent children being brought up in such situations (we don't do that for example for children of poor families or children with ginger hair or any of the many other things children get abused and bullied for). Just that you've said something which is akin to "all sheep are white (apart from the ones that aren't)".

          • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:21PM

            by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:21PM (#24127) Homepage

            And they are just as wrong....
            Most of them focus on some twisted idea of what is 'natural'.
            Appearantly a mariage is nothing more than producing offspring like rabbits.

            • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:03PM

              by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:03PM (#24155)

              Which would put vasectomies, tubiligations(sp?), and any nonprocreating couple in the same category as gay marriage.

              --
              The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
              • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:15PM

                by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:15PM (#24170) Homepage Journal

                Not necessarily. Societally (at least in the US), while married couples with kids get more benefits (e.g., tax breaks) than married couples without kids, they still serve as examples of what "society" deems to be "normal" and "beneficial" and "desirable".

                (And please keep in mind that these are not my beliefs. I'm making these arguments as a contrarian. Some might consider it trolling or flamebait, but my intent is to promote critical thought and discussion.)

                --
                I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
            • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:06PM

              by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:06PM (#24156) Homepage Journal

              Most of them... but not all of them. Don't tell me you couldn't any arguments there that weren't somewhat rational. Disagreement is not a valid justification for outright dismissal.

              --
              I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
          • (Score: 2) by snick on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:48PM

            by snick (1408) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:48PM (#24142)

            Oh that's rich.

            Many of the "reasons" are statements that people who are ostracized by society tend to lead unhealthy lives.

            No shit sherlock.

            The question isn't whether homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV or have substance abuse problems than straight men, but whether MARRIED homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and have substance abuse problems than MARRIED straight men.

            What's that ????
            crickets.
            I thought so.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:20PM

              by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:20PM (#24177) Homepage Journal

              That might be the question that you see. The question that I see is completely different: what definition of marriage (if any) should society choose to promote and reward with legal and/or economic incentives?

              --
              I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
              • (Score: 1) by ArhcAngel on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:07PM

                by ArhcAngel (654) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:07PM (#24222)

                Since the incentives were created to foster an economic condition in which the wife could support the family by staying home and rearing children thus providing them with a stable environment in which to grow perhaps repealing these incentives for families where both parents work is the actual fair thing to do. In the US people are free to pursue the relationship of their liking (certain age restrictions apply). What is being lobbied for/against is the extension of entitlements to same-sex partners. I say take away the entitlements completely since the reason they were created (1 wage earner households) is mostly a thing of the past. Have the entitlements extend only to households where the annual income is 20% below the median average annual income (or 15% or 30% I just used 20% as a possible threshold). Once you take emotion and prejudice out of the equation it is easier to craft a tenable solution. I just don't see anybody on either side willing to do that.

                • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:29PM

                  by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:29PM (#24249) Homepage Journal

                  Good points. Do you include dependent/child tax benefits in that strategy? Also, I wonder if eliminating the marriage tax benefits would also require the amendment of welfare laws; we don't necessarily want to create a disincentive to marriage for those with kids. Some may reason that being an unemployed single parent is better than being married, especially if the other parent is still around and able to provide income.

                  --
                  I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
              • (Score: 1) by velex on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:03PM

                by velex (2068) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:03PM (#24270) Journal

                Easy. Nullify any marriages that don't involve a pregnancy within 6 months, and nullify any marriages upon death of the children (abortion, accidental, disease, etc). Enforce marriages between individuals who have genetic offspring under the age of 18, even if that results in one person being married to several other people. There, everyone's happy, even the feminists since my proposal would enable lesbian-only marriages as long as that procedure to put the genetic material from an egg into a sperm is performed. (Tho MRAs might not be too happy when stupid guys "help" a lesbian couple have a child under my proposal since that would constitute a marriage that excludes the other lesbian partner and enforces it on the idiot guy.)

                Err... I don't think too many folks will be ok with that. But that's ok. I forget who here has a sig to the effect of "you can't rationally argue someone out of a position they didn't rationally get into," but that applies.

                A more serious answer would be that I don't think society should reward any kind of interpersonal relationship legally or economically. Get the government out of the marriage business. Maybe churches could reward individuals in marriages they recognize, but then that's their business and none of mine at that point.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:49PM

                by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:49PM (#24315) Homepage Journal

                what definition of marriage (if any) should society choose to promote and reward with legal and/or economic incentives?

                I vote for none at all. Why should a childless married couple pay less in tax than a widow with a child who earns the same amount of money?

                Why are we discriminating against single people? Governments should stay out of marriage and sex and family life.

                --
                Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
                • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:58PM

                  by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:58PM (#24322) Homepage Journal

                  This is insightful. Now spin it another way.

                  • husband and wife with two kids pay, tax bill is X
                  • wife dies, now-widowed husband earns same salary, tax bill is now Y
                  • Y > X

                  .
                  How is that fair?

                  --
                  I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
                • (Score: 2) by etherscythe on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:09AM

                  by etherscythe (937) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:09AM (#24532) Journal

                  Governments should stay out of marriage and sex and family life.

                  I agree with this, mostly. I do think that anyone that wants to be able to designate visitation rights in the hospital (for example) should be able to choose anybody, for pretty much any reason.

                  From what I've heard, if you are not blood related and immediate family (or adopted), you have to be married to get these benefits. This is where the government needs to step in and define it so that a person's wishes must be honored with no preference for majority or minority lifestyle.

                  --
                  "Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
                  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:36PM

                    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:36PM (#24911) Homepage Journal

                    From what I've heard, if you are not blood related and immediate family (or adopted), you have to be married to get these benefits.

                    It probably varies depending on where you are, depending on your state or country's laws. I lived with a woman I thought was divorced who died of cancer a few years ago. She went in the hospital and never came out. That's when I found out she was married, her husband came trying to get her to sign divorce papers after refusing a divorce for two years so the abusive SOB wouldn't have to pay the hospital for the cancer. The hospital barred him from the premises, I could visit any time I wanted, even after she'd slipped into a coma. That's Illinois, across a state line or maybe even a different hospital it might be different.

                    --
                    Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
            • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:45PM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:45PM (#24312) Homepage Journal

              Many of the "reasons" are statements that people who are ostracized by society tend to lead unhealthy lives.

              So? People smoke, drink too much, sit on their fat asses all day. It's no more my problem than homosexuality is. It's simply none of my business. Christians who judge others should rather look at their own sins instead of anyone else's.

              --
              Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by GeminiDomino on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:26PM

            by GeminiDomino (661) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:26PM (#24292)

            There don't seem to be any that hold up. They all seem to boil down to the "fact" that "the purpose of marriage is to create children" or somesuch.

            Except that's obviously not true (plenty of kids to unmarried parents, plenty of hetero married couples with no kids), so once you discard that... nope, we're back to none.

            --
            "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:42PM

              by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:42PM (#24308) Homepage Journal

              The argument that there are plenty of kids to unmarried parents doesn't disprove the assertion that the purpose of marriage is to create children; one does not preclude the other.

              The argument that there are plenty of hetero married couples with no kids doesn't disprove (completely) the assertion either. Childless marriages are still in the minority, and not too long ago (in societal terms), they were very uncommon. One could also say that couples that marry, but don't have children, don't receive all the same legal/tax benefits that families-with-kids receive.

              I'm not picking on you in particular, but there are a lot of people here that seem willing to dismiss the argument against same-sex marriage with very little critical consideration of what supports that argument. That's why I've posted such an argument (and a very long reply to someone else) about this in another part of the thread.

              If I'm going to refute the "anti-gay-marriage" argument, like I intend to do with anybody that brings it up around me, I want to be able to do so from the position of understanding their argument (having taken it seriously).

              --
              I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
              • (Score: 1) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:13PM

                by Tork (3914) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:13PM (#24331)

                The argument that there are plenty of kids to unmarried parents doesn't disprove the assertion that the purpose of marriage is to create children; one does not preclude the other.

                It proves that kids happen either way, as opposed to marriage, then kids.

                The argument that there are plenty of hetero married couples with no kids doesn't disprove (completely) the assertion either.

                Yes, it does. There are no prerequisites to marriage that are based on fertility. There is no objection, for example, to a post-menopausal woman getting married.

                --
                Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:52PM

                  by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:52PM (#24360) Homepage Journal

                  The purpose of frying pans is to act as a vessel for cooking food. (It may not be the only purpose, but it is the main purpose, and the reason it came into being in the first place.)

                  • The fact that food can be cooked using grills, pots, open flame, etc. doesn't disprove that.
                  • The fact that some frying pans are merely hung from a rack for decorative purposes doesn't change that.
                  --
                  I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
                  • (Score: 1) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:00PM

                    by Tork (3914) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:00PM (#24367)
                    This does not address my rebuttal, at all. If a pan melts when exposed to flame, it's not a frying pan. Yet a couple can marry when conception is impossible. Your premise is false.
                    --
                    Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                    • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:35PM

                      by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:35PM (#24396) Homepage Journal

                      "Marriage's primary purpose is procreating and raising children" is to "married couples sometimes don't have children" as "Frying pans are for cooking food" is to:

                      (a) "Frying pans are sometimes just hung for decorative purposes", or
                      (b) "Frying pans might melt when exposed to flame"

                      What's your answer?

                      --
                      I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
                      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:06PM

                        by Tork (3914) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:06PM (#24413)
                        Care to rewrite that in a way that addresses the actual point I made?
                        --
                        Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                        • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:07PM

                          by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:07PM (#24442) Homepage Journal

                          Alright, to recap:

                          The argument that there are plenty of kids to unmarried parents doesn't disprove the assertion that the purpose of marriage is to create children; one does not preclude the other.

                          It proves that kids happen either way, as opposed to marriage, then kids.

                          The argument that there are plenty of hetero married couples with no kids doesn't disprove (completely) the assertion either.

                          Yes, it does. There are no prerequisites to marriage that are based on fertility. There is no objection, for example, to a post-menopausal woman getting married.

                          The assertion I posited is that "the purpose of marriage is to create children", and that the existence of marriages without children doesn't disprove that assertion. You then claimed that it does disprove the assertion because fertility is not a prerequisite for marriage, and gave the example of post-menopausal women getting married. While I happen to agree with you, I still don't think you've managed to fully refute the original assertion in a convincing manner.

                          Unmarried people can have children, and married people can choose to forgo having children. Unmarried people can live together without having children, and married people can live apart even if they have children (I'm including separated/divorced parents in this). None of those conditions disprove the assertion that, by and large, the primary reason that the institution of marriage exists in American society is procreation and child-rearing.

                          I'm not saying this assertion is completely accurate, but I am saying that it represents a very common viewpoint. You can try to refute it, but it's very difficult to do so in a manner that would change someone's mind. Trust me, I've tried; my Dad can be the most logical, dispassionate, areligious son-of-a-bitch in the world, and we agree about many things, but I don't think I'll ever be able to dislodge him from this particular position. I was hoping that somebody here would be able to give me the winning counter-argument, but I haven't seen it yet. In fact, I've tried many of the ones that have been posted here, but none have worked.

                          --
                          I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
                          • (Score: 1) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:19PM

                            by Tork (3914) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:19PM (#24447)

                            "I still don't think you've managed to fully refute the original assertion in a convincing manner."

                            The assertion hasn't been proven either. Since they do wish to block gay marriage, but do not wish to block marriage to an infertile couple, your rationale doesn't work.

                            --
                            Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                            • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:26PM

                              by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:26PM (#24453) Homepage Journal

                              Hmm. Guess I sort of forgot the particulars of this case along the way; I was thinking of the more common case in which same-sex marriages are not yet legal and the legal motion is by those wishing to allow it.

                              Arg.

                              --
                              I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
                              • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:33PM

                                by Tork (3914) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:33PM (#24454)
                                Nah. Proposition 8, which is what the CEO of Mozilla donated $1,000 to campaign for, was about preemptively denying same sex marriages.
                                --
                                Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:01AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:01AM (#24600)

                        Fact of the matter is that frying pans can both be hung for decorative purposes, cooked on, and melted over a sufficiently hot flame. My cast iron pan will be glowing orange hot after just a couple minutes on a campfire, and I could certainly make a fire hot enough to melt it.

                  • (Score: 1) by blackest_k on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:45AM

                    by blackest_k (2045) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:45AM (#24631)

                    There is a whole bunch of things that marriage gives that just cohabiting does not.

                    If you ever watch judge judy you might notice that a married couple who split up get a much better hearing than a couple who lived together. Thats because there is law in place to give the married couple rights in the case of divorce and nothing in the case of unmarried couples splitting up.

                    As a married man my wife qualifies for a widows pension if I die, as a divorced man she doesn't and nor does my girlfriend no matter how long we have been together. As a single man under the eyes of the law only my blood relatives have a claim on my property by default and even without blood relatives, the state has a better claim on my property than does my girlfriend.

                    That institution of marriage does give some stability and weight to the relationship between a husband and wife. There are not the same protections for boy and girlfriend.

                    That legal framework does not depend on a married couple having children.
                    Over all it is a pretty good system, nobody is arguing that just because you are dating somebody that if you happen to die that your girlfriend/s at the time should get your pension rights.

                    Same sex couples can make the same commitment to each other as heterosexual couples and it is a good thing to recognise this in law and in marriage.

                         

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:35PM

        by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:35PM (#24076) Homepage Journal

        This is an insightful question. Brendan Eich has supported his personal views monetarily. OKCupid is supporting their corporate view symbolically (at least initially, as there could be a downstream monetary impact, negative or positive).

        This brings up an interesting point though... no matter how much I might support OKCupid's argument, I completely distrust their motive. A company is not a person.

        --
        I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
        • (Score: 1) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:35PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:35PM (#24397) Journal

          This brings up an interesting point though... no matter how much I might support OKCupid's argument, I completely distrust their motive. A company is not a person.

          Not too hard to understand OKC's motives though if you know a bit about the site. Their target demographic seems to be all those slightly out of the mainstream. Which means they have a very high number of users identifying as homosexual or bisexual (I swear every third profile on there starts with some form of 'I'm not actually bi, I'm poly/queer/pan/whatever and that's the closest option')...so yeah, it's all about the publicity, because anyone who disagress with same-sex marriage probably isn't using OKC anyway.

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:26AM

    by VLM (445) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:26AM (#24026)

    The only minor problem with "outing" dirtbags like this, is in the future they're still going to be dirtbags, and the dirtbags are still going to be in charge, its just they'll be microscopically smart enough to hand their wife $5K and tell her to donate in her name to make a simple database "JOIN" a little more complicated. This already goes on to get around campaign donation limits so its hardly uncharted territory.

    So I'm just saying this is fun, and is good, but in the long run its not going to be possible anymore so have your fun while you can.

    Haters gotta hate and they will just find a sneakier way to get away with it.

    • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:17PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:17PM (#24063)

      The easier way is to go the soft money route.

      Don't donate to a specific cause or candidate. Donate to a squishy organization that in TURN donates to those causes/candidates. Then you didn't donate to an anti-gay-marriage campaign. You donated to "Strengthening American Families, Inc.", which just HAPPENS to donate to anti-gay-marriage campaigns.

      PAC's/SuperPAC's are pretty much custom designed entities to get around donation limits and donor transparency laws, and the Supreme Court tragically ruled them perfectly LEGAL ways to get around those laws.

      • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:38PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:38PM (#24080)

        Then you didn't donate to an anti-gay-marriage campaign. You donated to "Strengthening American Families, Inc.", which just HAPPENS to donate to anti-gay-marriage campaigns.

        I don't know about this. Obviously, these organizations exist and all, but what I mean is: do any high-profile people, who are trying to appear neutral on these issues, actually donate to these things? It wouldn't be that hard to figure out, and then out them.

        One of my points in an earlier discussion about Eich was that you don't see other tech CEOs and luminaries donating to crap like this, or really making any stand on social issues usually. The people who do are people whose public image wouldn't be tarnished by such associations (such as Republican politicians, Hobby Lobby executives, etc.). I think if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs had donated to "Strengthening American Families Inc.", we would have heard about it.

        • (Score: 1) by Bill, Shooter Of Bul on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:18PM

          by Bill, Shooter Of Bul (3170) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:18PM (#24173)

          No, because the rules that govern some of the groups allow them to keep their donors secret. You donate anonymously to one group, and they donate to another group publicly, or advocate for the act personally.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:30AM

    by zocalo (302) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:30AM (#24028)
    While I don't agree with Brendan Eich's personal view on this, that shouldn't have any bearing on his ability to do a good job at Mozilla, so this comes down to a matter of personal opinions and a tit-for-tat like with Orson Scott Card/Ender's Game. What we have here is a group of people who didn't like Brendan Eich trying to push his views on others, which is fair enough, but are now quite happy to try and push *their* views on others, namely users of Firefox.

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this, but I'm sure not taking them seriously.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 2) by geb on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:03PM

      by geb (529) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:03PM (#24053)

      The message from OKCupid didn't criticise Eich for trying to push an opinion on others. It criticised him for the nature of that opinion. There's no contradiction in that.

      By the nature of free speech, you are supposed to be able to push your views on others, provided that it is done through peaceful means such as debate, public statements, and yes, through donations in political process too.

      Other people can then use their free speech right back at you. If you disagree with their counterpoint, you can then freely speak back in turn, and so on...

      Democracy!

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Lazarus on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:21PM

        by Lazarus (2769) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:21PM (#24286)

        I think it's a mistake to reduce bigotry vs. acceptance as "views." It's sad that the ignorant social conservatives want people to think their hateful, bigoted, superstitious natures are just a "point of view" like any other. The reality is that their dysfunction is something they should have, but failed to, grow out of as they matured into adults. They're all arrested-development cases that can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and want to inflict their bonkers worldview on people who know better.

        Some people are kind and helpful, others are harmful to their fellow man, and the harmful people should be marginalized. They should not all be reduced to "views" as if being kind and being hateful are somehow equivalent.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:06PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:06PM (#24055) Homepage
      What is the "that" that "shouldn't have any bearing..."? Eich's personal views, or your not agreeing? If the latter, then you're introducing irrelevancies, and if the former then what did you intend "should" to mean in that context. If it's deontic modality, then What agent is enforcing the duty in it? If it's a statistical statement, then on what basis are you making it, as a large majority of those who've expressed an opinion consider the probabilities to swing the other way?

      Whilst it *doesn't necessarily* have any bearing on his ability, it does point to the fact that he doesn't have the needs of the masses as a whole at heart. So it implies that he *might* not be the best person to lead what it attempting to be an inclusive and idealistic software project.

      And a strategy of tit-for-tat is not necessarily hypocricy, sometimes it's just good game theory and effective rhetoric.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:30PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:30PM (#24070)

      If the issue of LGBT equal rights didn't impact the Mozilla foundation, then maybe I'd agree that his personal views "shouldn't have any bearing on his ability to do a good job."

      However, I doubt this is the case I'm willing to believe that Mozilla has LGBT employees. I'd be willing to bet that some of them want to (or will eventually want to) get married. I'd expect they'd want to receive equal benefits to their counterparts. I'd expect they'd want to be free from harrassment in the workplace. I expect they'd not want to feel like they'd be unwelcome to talk about their relationships in the workplace, unlike their colleagues. I'd expect LGBT engineers considering employment would want to feel welcome.

      The CEO has a lot of power in a company, and both explicit decision making powers (benefits) and implicit decision making powers (what's tolerated/not in the workplace). The CEO's personal views on topics like this are hardly irrelevant. It would similarly be relevant if someone in a CEO position publicly opposed an "equal pay for women" law, was against the Family and Medical Leave act, etc. Those views matter.

      Do I know the details of Brendan Eich's personal views on LGBT equality? Nope. Do I know that he'll act on them in a professional capacity? Nope. Would it be relevant if he did? You betcha.

      His personal views might be much more nuanced than we can tell from one donation. He might separate his personal beliefs from his professional actions. He might not. But (IMO) he has some reasonable 'splaining to do to the people who work for him. People who have some reasonable fears about how they'll be treated in his company.

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:46PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:46PM (#24089)

      What if Eich was a card-carrying member of the KKK? Do you think that might have a bearing on his ability to do a good job at Mozilla? Surely Mozilla has at least a few non-Caucasian employees, and if they had a KKK-member CEO, it would be entirely reasonable for them to expect discrimination in the workplace. It's no different with Eich; anyone who's LGBT can obviously expect to be discriminated against with him at the helm.

      As for pushing views, bigotry and other such attitudes were never fought effectively by simply being tolerant of them and refusing to call out and criticize them.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:43PM (#24207)

        As for pushing views, bigotry and other such attitudes were never fought effectively by simply being tolerant of them and refusing to call out and criticize them.

        Nor were such attitudes ever effectively fought by shaming and persecution. That just makes the person with the attitude resentful of their persecutors, which just reinforces their attitude.

      • (Score: 1) by Tangaroa on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:47PM

        by Tangaroa (682) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:47PM (#24258) Homepage

        What if Eich was a card-carrying member of the KKK? Do you think that might have a bearing on his ability to do a good job at Mozilla? Surely Mozilla has at least a few non-Caucasian employees, and if they had a KKK-member CEO, it would be entirely reasonable for them to expect discrimination in the workplace.

        What if Eich was a card-carrying member of the ACLU? Surely Mozilla has a few Jewish employees who would feel threatened by ACLU's support for Hamas [clarionproject.org].

        What if Eich was a card-carrying Communist? The ghost of Joe McCarthy told me during a seance that Communists should be fired from their jobs because of their leftist political viewpoints. After all, leftists are responsible for killing nearly 150,000,000 people over the past 100 years [scottmanning.com], often wiping out entire ethnic groups in preplanned genocides because their traditional values were not "progressive" enough. Imagine the bad example it would set if a progressive were allowed to be CEO of a company.

        What if Eich was gay? Imagine the horrible example it would set for our children if a gay man was allowed to be CEO of a company. Insert claptrap about family, morals, and values.

        The issue is not whether Eich's political viewpoint is an acceptable target [tvtropes.org], it is whether it is a good idea to punish people financially and deny them employment for disagreeing with us. If Eich was KKK or a Nazi or Swedish Labor Party, the answer should be the same. As long as he doesn't abuse his authority, there is no problem. As Voltaire said, I may disagree with your speech but I will defend your right to say it.

        As for pushing views, bigotry and other such attitudes were never fought effectively by simply being tolerant of them and refusing to call out and criticize them.

        All of the bigotry here is being directed at Eich. He is being called a hater when we don't know his reasons for supporting Prop 8. Is there any evidence at all of him ever using his position to discriminate against gay employees in his 20 years with Netscape and Mozilla?

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:28PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:28PM (#24295)

          The only reason you'd support Prop 8 is because you think homosexuals are inferior and deserve less than equal rights and status. That alone is evidence of discrimination. Asking that question is ridiculous: would you ask "Is there any evidence at all of him (a KKK member) using his position to discriminate against black employees"? Of course not, being a member of the KKK proves you favor discrimination against non-white people, and backing Prop 8 proves you favor discrimination against gay people. And "reasons"? Are you going to ask what "reasons" someone has for supporting the KKK? It's no different here.

          • (Score: 1) by Tangaroa on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:56PM

            by Tangaroa (682) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:56PM (#24318) Homepage

            The only reason you'd support Prop 8 is because you think homosexuals are inferior and deserve less than equal rights and status.

            Here is the Yes On 8 campaign argument [protectmarriage.com]. It talks about preserving a traditional definition of marriage that has traditional reasons for existing and tradition. This is a reason to support Prop 8 that says nothing about homosexuals being inferior or deserving lesser status. The existence of this reason disproves your assertion that there is no other reason to support Prop 8. It does not need to be a good reason, it merely needs to exist, as it does.

            The rest of your comment surrenders that there is no evidence of Eich having any disrespect toward people of different sexual orientation, let alone bringing any such attitudes into the workplace which might justify dismissing him from his job. With it now demonstrated [protectmarriage.com] that support for Proposition 8 does not alone imply any disrespectful attitude towards people of different sexual orientation, there is no evidence of Eich having any such attitude. So why the hell should Eich lose his job over nothing?

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:10PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:10PM (#24330)

              That's all a bunch of bigoted crap dressed up by religious nuts looking for an excuse to treat people as inferiors and deny them rights. The anti-womens' suffrage people said the same kind of stuff.

              You continuing to argue this, and spout this pro-prop-8 crap is proof that you're just another anti-gay bigot like Eich.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:14PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:14PM (#24336)

              BTW, your kind of people said the same thing about interracial marriages. I suppose you're against those too. If "tradition" were a good reason to support things, we'd be going back to slavery. Are you in favor of that too? Face it, you're a religious nut and a bigot.

              • (Score: 1) by Tangaroa on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:33PM

                by Tangaroa (682) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:33PM (#24346) Homepage

                "You people" feels like an all too familiar insult, but would that refer to the gods of New Zealand, the Maori, or aboriginal people in general? Or perhaps I am Chinese or African American or a chipmunk. How would you know? Regardless of you not knowing who my people are, you have decided that you hate my people. There's a word for that. It starts with a "b" and ends in "igot".

                So far our dialogue has proven three points:

                1. There is at least one reason to support Proposition 8 that has nothing against gay people.
                2. There is no grounds to suggest, let alone conclude, that Brendan Eich harbours any ill will towards gay people.
                3. You really cannot stand to see anyone disagreeing with you.

                Given your complete failure to form anything remotely resembling a counterargument, I see no further reason to continue. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.

                • (Score: 1, Troll) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:42PM

                  by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:42PM (#24354)

                  Sorry, but it's not bigoted to dislike religious assholes who want to push their religious values on everyone else using laws.

                  And yes, Eich has proven he harbors ill will towards gay people, by supporting an anti-gay law. Arguing otherwise is akin to supporting slavery and arguing that you don't have anything against black people, you simply believe they'd be better off as slaves.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:22PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:22PM (#24383)

                    > Sorry, but it's not bigoted to dislike religious assholes who
                    > want to push their religious values on everyone else using laws.

                    You are such a hypocrite. Preaching tolerance, but you won't tolerate my hate!

                  • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:27PM

                    by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:27PM (#24393) Homepage Journal

                    Sorry, but you are being a bigot here. Tangaroa's posts have been factual, dispassionate, and respectful. He has put forth the arguments that: a) Eich's personal political views do not automatically disqualify him as a CEO or prove that he hates gays, and b) no matter how disagreeable a persons opinions may be, they still have the right to express them. You've done nothing but bring up bogeymen like the KKK and state that any argument you don't like is equivalent to supporting slavery.

                    Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

                    Turn it around. Let's say you've just become CEO of Mozilla. You're a devout and outspoken atheist. You've donated some of your own money to Atheist causes, particularly those campaigning against your state government's frequent and continued attempts to inject Christian themes into education, law, etc. Some of your employees and many of your customers are Christians. The dating site "ChristianMingle.com" has just started redirecting Firefox users to a page explaining your atheistic views and recommending people switch to IE, Opera, or Chrome. Furthermore, their redirect page states the following: "Those who seek to deny Christ's love and instead promote Satan's misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure."

                    What's your response now?

                    --
                    I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
                    • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:51PM

                      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:51PM (#24403)

                      Apples and oranges. Unless the atheist causes the CEO supports actually seek to deprive rights or privileges from non-atheists, and publicly state that religious people are lesser people somehow, then there's no conflict. By your logic, a devout and outspoken Jewish CEO who donates to pro-Jewish causes (let's assume here these causes are all things here in the USA, for Jews living in the USA, and not involving the state of Israel or its relations with Palestinians) would be suspect because he might discriminate against non-Jewish people. This is rather ridiculous, since to extend this further, any CEO who's affiliated with any religion at all (which is probably most of them, if their religious affiliation mirrors the general population) would be suspected of discrimination against anyone who isn't of that very same religion. Considering just how many Protestant sects there are in the US, in addition to all the other religions and sects of those religions, I don't think I need to explain how ridiculous this idea is.

                      The fundamental point is whether someone supports a cause which seeks to deny privileges to a group, especially a minority group, for no good reason at all other than "tradition" or "it offends me". If the atheist CEO donated to support a law to remove voting rights from Christians or to place a special tax on them or other religious people, you'd have a point. However, Prop 8 sought specifically to deny a privilege to a minority group, and that's plain and simple bigotry.

                      As for someone having the right to express opinions, no one has ever challenged this. The First Amendment guarantees this to everyone. The rest of us have the right to criticize people for their opinions, and even to refuse to do business with someone because of their opinion, and even to loudly call for them to be fired for their opinion. When someone is in a prominent, public position such as a tech CEO, their opinion gets far more airtime than some bum on the street, or some cubicle drone. They are the voice of their company. So it's perfectly fine to criticize that company for hiring this bigot, and to call for his firing.

                      • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:15PM

                        by wjwlsn (171) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:15PM (#24445) Homepage Journal

                        Alright, so finally you post a reasonable and insightful reply in this thread... so what was the deal with *all* of your other replies?! Honestly, they seemed like rabid "support gay marriage or you're a baby killer" jabs at someone that was politely posting a dissenting viewpoint.

                        --
                        I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:07AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:07AM (#24604)

                          > so what was the deal with *all* of your other replies?

                          People who understand the issues tend to have little patience for those who both do not understand the issues and insist in arguing out the same tired old cliches. Sometimes those people really are new to the debate, but that's rare. Most of time the people who spout those same old simplistic arguments have heard the rebuttals multiple times before and have simply closed their mind to them and are just rote posting the same old shit.

                          • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:33PM

                            by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:33PM (#24975)

                            Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. Whenever someone trots out links to some politically-conservative "pro-families" anti-gay-marriage website with its talking points, I have to assume they're in the camp of people arguing the same tired old cliches.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:13PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:13PM (#24230)

      Some guy who I don't even care about's opinion about a random unrelated social issue should not result in me being told to switch browsers. His personal beliefs do not effect the functioning of Firefox. OkCupid can cram it.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:23PM (#24384)

        > His personal beliefs do not effect the functioning of Firefox. OkCupid can cram it.

        You should know that his own employees called for his resignation.

      • (Score: 1) by pedantic on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:14AM

        by pedantic (145) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:14AM (#24608)

        His personal beliefs do not effect the functioning of Firefox.

        You are correct. His personal beliefs do not bring into existence the functioning of Firefox. I believe you meant 'affect'.

    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:50PM

      by Tork (3914) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:50PM (#24261)
      If you were gay would you be happy with a guy like that becoming your boss?
      --
      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
      • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:53PM

        by zocalo (302) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:53PM (#24317)
        I have no idea. Perhaps some of the people calling for boycots of Mozilla and slamming Eich for his anti-LGBT views can clarify what he's like as a manager, whether he can keep his personal life opinions at the office door, and how far his anti-LGBT views actually go so I can make an informed decision? That data seems to be quite lacking in all this, and if the answer to the first two points are acceptable, then the third wouldn't be any where near as relevant to me in any case.

        AFAIK, Prop-8 was limited to the prevention of marriage, but didn't say anything about Civil Unions, being LGBT or anything else. The difference between "Civil Union" and "Marriage" might be subtle, pure semantics in some cases and legally significant in others, but it matters a lot to some people on both sides of the discussion. If he is in the camp that is OK with civil union but not marriage, then OKCupid's claims are pure hyperbole since that would blow the "8% of relationships being illegal" argument out of the water. Or what about the "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure." bit? There's nothing shameful and frustrating for a user receiving a full page click-through proposing that they might be seen as anti-LBGT because they just happen to use a certain browser?

        Don't get me wrong, I think OKCupid had every right to take issue with Eich's views, not least the First Amendment, but this approach doesn't exactly give them any significantly higher ground than that of Eich.
        --
        UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:07PM

          by Tork (3914) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:07PM (#24327)

          I have no idea. Perhaps some of the people calling for boycots of Mozilla and slamming Eich for his anti-LGBT views can clarify what he's like as a manager, whether he can keep his personal life opinions at the office door, and how far his anti-LGBT views actually go so I can make an informed decision?

          Well it was his employees that brought it to light...

          --
          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:58PM (#24265)
      One man's hypocrisy is another man's just desserts. He used money to try to take something precious away, now somebody else is doing the same to him. If they took your version of the high ground this lesson would never be learned!
    • (Score: 1) by dcollins on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:02PM

      by dcollins (1168) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:02PM (#24324) Homepage

      "What we have here is a group of people who didn't like Brendan Eich trying to push his views on others... I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this, but I'm sure not taking them seriously."

      Interpret differently: What we have here is a group of people who don't like Brendan Eich's views. No one has asserted that he doesn't have a right to speak or donate, just that he is using those rights improperly. So like any political contest, the question is: Whose viewpoint will ultimately win?

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:37AM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:37AM (#24034) Homepage Journal

    This all seems a bit over the top. Sure, the guy is a public figure, but this was a private political donation, and not even for all that much money. Someone dug deep to find this little tidbit.

    And just why is it so awful? An earlier comment calls him a "dirtbag" - but according to Wikipedia Proposition 8 passed with a comfortable majority. re more than half of all Californians "dirtbags", or is it possible that there are valid concerns about the legislative expansion of "marriage"; concerns that may have little to do with LGBT issues?

    I'm not in California (or even close), so I cannot say for certain, but it seems likely that there is more to this than is being reported. I do note that none of the articles mention trying to get his side of the story, not even the usual cop-out "did not immediately return our call". Wouldn't want to risk having facts put a damper on outrage, after all...

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:41AM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:41AM (#24036)

      this voting push was bought and paid for by NON-california based mormons.

      if calif was left alone, I doubt they would have voted so anti-gay. its not fair to say that half the state is filled with hate. I live here and I just don't see that. I see a lot more acceptance and a 'live and let live' attitude.

      in fact, the money he donated probably helped the mormons with their anti-freedom cause.
      he really should be kicked out of the CEO position. he's not a moral leader and he does not fit into the california way of doing things.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:46PM (#24211)

        If your argument can be countered in voters' minds by someone splashing some money around, perhaps your argument isn't as strong as you thought it was.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:23PM (#24240)

          More interestingly it seems that the campaigns for and against P8 raised more or less the same amount of cash so I'd say this was a very democratic.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:22PM (#24287)

          Since when are votes on official topics decided by the strength of arguments?

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:20PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:20PM (#24237)

        Also, the Jews stabbed us in the back in WW1.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by lhsi on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:56AM

      by lhsi (711) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:56AM (#24047) Journal

      but according to Wikipedia Proposition 8 passed with a comfortable majority

      I'm not from America so don't know much about this Proposition 8 specifically, but had a look at the Wikipedia article. There it says that "Yes" was only 52.24% and also notes that voter turnout was 79.42%. A majority yes (of those who voted), but how is this considered "comfortable"?

      • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:50PM

        by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:50PM (#24094) Homepage Journal

        In many countries, certainly including the US, a voter turnout of 79% is amazing. Typical is anywhere between 30% and 50%.

        People who do not vote are effectively accepting whatever result happens. A result of 52.24% yes and 47.76% no is a 5% margin, which is very comfortable. Consider that, in the last US presidential election, Barack Obama only received 51% of the vote.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:10PM

          by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:10PM (#24163)

          It is common, but I would not agree with comfortable. Any decision that goes against the wishes of almost half of the people cannot be considered comfortable.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:23PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:23PM (#24241)

            Comfortable compared to having the Supreme Court have to rule because Florida can't get their ballots straight and it's almost exactly 50-50...

            That's the way U.S. politics is set up. It kind of sucks.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by mth on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:29PM

      by mth (2848) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:29PM (#24069) Homepage

      Personally, I can't think of any good reason to be opposed to gay marriage. But is that such a terrible opinion that a site should ask its visitors to boycott Mozilla for something the CEO did privately?

      I think the best way to get gay marriage accepted is to show that it leads to more happy people and doesn't in any way diminish the value of traditional marriage, not by shunning people who oppose it. The more pressure you put on the issue, the less likely that people will change their mind.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:26PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:26PM (#24244)

        Well put. You don't convince people to change their viewpoint by calling them horrible and bigots, but by explaining respectfully and in detail why they should change their mind.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:39PM (#24400)

          No, you don't change their minds with either approach. [boston.com]

          "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
          --Jonathan Swift.

          The only thing you can hope for is that you convince the fence sitters looking on. Calling a bigot a bigot makes it clear to the audience. You'll never persuade the entire audience, you will alienate some of them, but you'll also convince some of them by being straight-up and direct with no room for doubt.

      • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:23AM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:23AM (#24612)

        Personally, I can't think of any good reason to be opposed to gay marriage. But is that such a terrible opinion that a site should ask its visitors to boycott Mozilla for something the CEO did privately?

        OkCupid's business is the online facilitation of relationships, many of which are gay. So it seems pretty much on point for them to have a public and vocal opinion on this topic.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:35PM (#24075)

      It is NOT over the top. The CEO is the public image of the company. That's what he gets paid for. His job.

      If he got paid for doing real work, he wouldn't be the CEO, he would be just another guy on the floor.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:21PM (#24178)

      > more than half of all Californians "dirtbags"

      California does have that reputation, but I think this applies to humanity broadly as well.

    • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:32PM

      by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:32PM (#24252)

      You had me until you suggested that half of Californians are not dirtbags.

      --
      Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:54PM (#24404)

      > "... and not even for all that much money."

      $1,000 pays for two people to work an entire day on a commercial. As many as four outside of Los Angeles, where rates are lower. More than enough to create a 60 second commercial intended to influence the ill-informed.

      > And just why is it so awful?

      Besides his own employees calling for his resignation, it's also weakens the Mozilla Foundation's claim they're about freedom and equal rights.

      > I'm not in California (or even close), so I cannot say for certain, but it seems likely that there is more to this than is being reported.

      The 'more than being reported' is the employees doing the actual call for the resignation, that's why it's a story. When that failed to get a reply out of him another interested party turned the heat up on him.

      > Wouldn't want to risk having facts put a damper on outrage, after all...

      Careful what you wish for, half of your outrage about the outrage is fueled by lack of understanding of the situation.

      To put it in a better perspective: Let's say there was a ballot in your county to prohibit divorce in your area. Once you're married, that's it, till death, no exceptions, not even domestic abuse. Then let's say a religious group from California (or any area that has utterly no business sticking their noses in your county...) put substantial resources into airing ads promoting this ballot. If this thought makes your backside twitch then you're starting to understand where the heat from this story is coming from. (If it doesn't and you're just sitting there with your cursor hovering over the reply button, just stop and reread it again. There's no point in arguing just to argue.) Then imagine you heard that a new chief of police in your area is starting his job, but the officers under him found out that he donated a significant amount of money to this cause. Did his donation to that campaign indicate that his values may not reflect those of the police department? He didn't answer those concerns, but the PD made a statement that said: "we help everybody, yadda yadda yadda".

      So, yeah, it's not so petty or black and white. He still has his chance to address the concern, when he takes it we'll certainly hear about it.

  • (Score: 1) by Bartman12345 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:47AM

    by Bartman12345 (1317) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:47AM (#24038)

    I thought this was about gay marriage, not gay relationships. It is quite possible to be OK with one but not the other. I think OkCupid might be exaggerating the issue somewhat.

    • (Score: 1) by NullPtr on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:01PM

      by NullPtr (3786) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:01PM (#24049) Journal

      Please mum! They want to get married but they can't get married! It's not usual! Mum...he's treating them the same as us but they're different!

    • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:50PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:50PM (#24093)

      So it's Ok to treat people as second-class citizens? Anyone who is "OK with one but not the other" is simply a bigot; there's no other way to say it. Either you're in favor of equal rights for everyone, or you're not.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:59PM (#24107)

        You're either with me or against me!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:10PM (#24115)

        Then perhaps we should get rid of marriage all together, or at least the privileges associated with it.

      • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:19PM

        by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:19PM (#24125) Homepage Journal

        It really isn't necessarily that simple. I frankly haven't decided where I am going to land on this issue, but here is the direction my thoughts are going. Before one can have a genuine, well-considered position on this issue, you need to ask - and answer - several questions:

        - What is marriage? A private agreement, like handfasting? A religious ceremony? A legal contract, defined by legislation? Really, marriage can be any or all of these to different people. Note that the only thing being discussed here is the last of those three.

        - Fine, let's look at only the legal aspect of marriage: What does it entail? Why does it exist? Note: The fact that something exists, doesn't mean everyone has a right to it; sometimes laws are tailored to address only a specific group. The American ADA exists to target disabled people. Military regulations apply only to members of the military. State-recognized marriage, until recently, targeted only monogamous, heterosexual couples.

        - Next step: Why was legal marriage instituted (it is a relatively recent invention)? What is its purpose? Why has it only targeted monogamous, heterosexual couples? Are those reasons no longer valid, or have they changed?

        - Finally: If the reasons behind the legal definition of marriage have changed, how should the legislation change? Simply recognizing LGBT marriage is very narrow indeed. Perhaps the Mormons would like polygamous marriage allowed? What about polyandry? Group marriages?

        Seriously, if we're going to reconsider the legal definition of marriage, let's do it right. Marriage, legally, is basically a contract, so let any arrangement of people enter into whatever legal contract they want. Of course, pretty much they already can, so the logical conclusion I am coming to is simple: Eliminate the concept of a special state-approved marriage contract entirely. Return marriage to a private and (if it suits you) religious agreement that has nothing to do with the government.

        Of course, if we were to do this, the hand-wringing on all sides would begin immediately.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:35PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:35PM (#24199)

          What is marriage?

          This is easy: when you're talking about state-sanctioned marriages, you're talking about a legal contract, defined by legislation. The religious crap is irrelevant. No one's trying to make laws forcing religious organizations to do anything differently.

          State-recognized marriage, until recently, targeted only monogamous, heterosexual couples.

          Legally-sanctioned bigotry isn't right, and needs to be stopped. "It's always been that way" isn't an excuse. There's almost never a good reason for giving special privileges to certain people (esp. when they're in the majority, and denying those privileges to a minority amounts to oppression and reduces their quality-of-life).

          Finally: If the reasons behind the legal definition of marriage have changed, how should the legislation change? Simply recognizing LGBT marriage is very narrow indeed. Perhaps the Mormons would like polygamous marriage allowed? What about polyandry? Group marriages?

          You do bring up good points here, and the answer is simple: group marriages should also be allowed, because forbidding them is also discrimination and oppression.

          Seriously, if we're going to reconsider the legal definition of marriage, let's do it right. Marriage, legally, is basically a contract, so let any arrangement of people enter into whatever legal contract they want.

          Yes, this is exactly right.

          Of course, pretty much they already can,

          Not exactly. Contract law is a pretty large body of law with its own specialists. Marriage is easy; even though it's mostly a contract, it's a pre-defined and pre-approved contract. Any moron (or rather, two morons) can head down to the county courthouse, get an application for a marriage license (aside: why do we need a license to get married?), fill it out, pay the fee, then get the Justice of the Peace to make it official. You don't need to hire a lawyer to get married, just go through the simple and usually inexpensive process, and you now have all the privileges (which are are many, including tax advantages) accorded to married couples.

          Writing up a contract to do something different from this, however, isn't so easy. You can write your own contract, but it's quite likely it will have clauses that won't be enforceable or legal, so to make a good contract, you probably need to hire a lawyer. That's expensive, plus such contracts can be challenged in court. Good luck contesting the terms of a standard marriage in court.

          Returning marriage to a totally private matter doesn't work, because there's too much stuff entwined into our society associated with it, legally speaking. Inheritance rights, visitation rights, power-of-attorney rights, tax privileges, etc. Just imagine the uproar if you try to take away the tax privileges associated with marriage, saying "it shouldn't have anything to do with the government". How do you handle non-working spouses, for instance? Tax the working partner at the single rate, and then give welfare benefits to the non-working partner? Or deny them welfare because they enjoy free rent and board, but then force the working partner to pay the same taxes as a single person? You'll never get many people to agree to that.

          I do agree with legalizing group marriages, but the whole issue is very complicated, and dismissing it by saying "return marriage to a private agreement that has nothing to do with the government" is woefully naive, and completely unworkable because it totally ignores how most of our society operates.

          I think the answer is to treat it much like regular contract law, but create different pre-approved marriage contracts that couples or groups are allowed to choose from. (They can also create their own, but it's advisable they hire an attorney to do so. They could also amend one of the standard contracts, which is much less risky and expensive.) A hetero couple could just choose from "standard marriage contract, community property version" or "standard marriage contract, non-community property version". Homo couples would likely do the same. Polyamorous groups could choose from different standard contracts, reflecting the nature of their relationship, whether it's a triad, a "vee", a quad, etc., if someone is a "full partner" or more of a "secondary", and specify how they want to handle things if a partner leaves the group. There's a lot of complexity involved in group relationships, which is probably why government probably isn't too keen on legalizing such things, but it could be done.

          • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:43PM

            by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:43PM (#24257)

            aside: why do we need a license to get married?

            The purpose of state-sanctioned marriage is to make divorces easier. In contract law, 90% of disputes are as to whether or not a valid contract exists, with one side or the other trying to nullify the contract.

            When a married couple breaks up, things tend to get messy, and the state gets dragged into it for the purposes of divvying up property and children. They short circuit the process by requiring you to meet some basic qualifications. Head down to the country records office and make sure Bob isn't still married to Alice before he marries Susie. Make sure everyone is of a proper age to consent to be married. Make sure no one is being forced or coerced into the marriage. This simple act eliminates a huge amount of the arguments that would otherwise be presented during a divorce hearing.

            I think the gay marriage debate is hilarious because people don't understand this. They think state-sanctioned marriage is some kind of reward, a special little cookie for being in love and getting married. When no, no it's really just to make divorce easier. LGBTs think they're getting gay marriage, when all they're really getting is access to gay divorce.

            Which brings up an interesting question. In a lesbian divorce, how will the family court judge know whom to blame if there's no man involved? And if it's two men getting divorced, would they just burn the house down because there's no woman to give it to?

            --
            Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
            • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:13PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:13PM (#24277)

              The purpose of state-sanctioned marriage is to make divorces easier.

              No, not really. That's a modern add-on or perhaps side-effect; divorces used to be extremely difficult to get, if not mostly impossible. They used to take that "til death do us part" line seriously, for better or for worse.

              I think the gay marriage debate is hilarious because people don't understand this. They think state-sanctioned marriage is some kind of reward, a special little cookie for being in love and getting married.

              You obviously haven't been paying attention. There are many benefits to state-sanctioned marriage. Taxes are a big one: married couples pay lower taxes. There's also inheritance rights and other things accorded to married couples. Health insurance benefits are another. Here's a big-ass list of benefits. Some other big ones: receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits for spouses, veteran's benefits for spouses, lower auto insurance rates, being able to sue for wrongful death of a spouse, the list is quite long. These are the things gay people want which straight people take for granted. [nolo.com]

              And yes, an easier divorce process (due to modern laws) is part of the package. Why wouldn't they want it to be easier to split up if it comes to that? There was some case in Florida a while ago about a lesbian couple that couldn't divorce because the state didn't recognize their marriage (I think they married in a different state), and couldn't make a clean break (co-mingled house ownership IIRC) and one ended up murdering the other. Imagine if battered wives who own part of their house weren't able to leave their abusive husbands without losing their portion of their house and also their money in the shared bank accounts, basically rendering them impoverished and homeless?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:15AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:15AM (#24609)

              > The purpose of state-sanctioned marriage is to make divorces easier.

              That is an argument which ignores the fact the divorce was exceptionally rare until quite recently, even having been illegal in many countries. Yet they still had state-sanctioned marriage for centuries if not millenia.

        • (Score: 1) by dcollins on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:47PM

          by dcollins (1168) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:47PM (#24356) Homepage

          One thing I'm happy about is that this brand of dilatory "just asking questions" evasiveness is clearly having no impact on the political process. More gays will get married, they will be more happy and be able to support each other better, the right-wingers and religious types will be further freaked out, and all of that's just grand.

          If "end legal marriage" came up on a ballot, then I'd vote for it and rejoice. But it's not, so the best harm-reduction we can do at this time is to allow gay marriage and let that serve as an example for how young gay people need not feel ashamed or like second-class citizens.

      • (Score: 1) by Bartman12345 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:26PM

        by Bartman12345 (1317) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:26PM (#24186)

        Mr Eich's support of Prop 8 means he wants gay marriage to be illegal.

        OkCupid's allegation is that "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".

        Gay Marriage != Gay Relationship.

        OkCupid's statement is simply bullshit; there's no other way to say it.

        • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:51PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:51PM (#24212)

          So basically you're OK with treating a group of people as second-class citizens. That makes you a bigot.

          • (Score: 2) by Bartman12345 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:11PM

            by Bartman12345 (1317) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:11PM (#24227)

            WTF? Either point out how my argument was wrong, or shut the fuck up. You obviously have strong opinions on the issue of gay relationships, but resorting to wild assumptions and name calling is just piss weak on your part and does nothing to validate your position.

            What makes your remark even more stupid is that it is not possible to reach that conclusion logically based on what I wrote. This was never about my views on the subject, I was only pointing out that what OkCupid are saying is not correct.

            But I guess when you're emotionally invested in something, thinking about what you write just isn't that important, is it.

            • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:28PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:28PM (#24248)

              You're arguing a technicality, when it's obvious that you're against gay marriage. That makes you a bigot, plain and simple. It's only bigots who trot out the argument that "gay people can have relationships without getting married", because the whole argument is trying to justify the idea of excluding a class of people from privileges enjoyed by others.

              • (Score: 1) by Tangaroa on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:14PM

                by Tangaroa (682) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:14PM (#24333) Homepage
                Here's a helpful life lesson I picked up a while back: if your political movement requires you to lie, then something is wrong with your political movement. Bartman pointed out that OKCupid is lying about a technicality. This is all that he said, and he is correct. You called him a bigot for it. Now you are lying. Stop it.
                • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:40PM

                  by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:40PM (#24351)

                  They didn't lie about anything. Eich is a bigot, just like you.

                  • (Score: 1) by Bartman12345 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:06PM

                    by Bartman12345 (1317) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:06PM (#24372)

                    Oi, watch it Tangaroa! There's only room in this thread for ONE bigot, and that's ME, geddit!? Find your own thread to be a bigot in! ;)

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:32PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:32PM (#24251)

            Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

            Every time I hear you say "bigot", it sounds like "I hate you I hate you I hate you! Burn in hell!!"

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:02PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:02PM (#24269)

              I never proposed stoning bigots; I don't think Jesus had a problem with people criticizing bad behavior in others. There's a big difference between criticizing bad behavior and oppressing or hurting someone because of their bad behavior.

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:42PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:42PM (#24309)

                Is calling someone a bigot really an attack on the behavior, or the person? The saying is obviously not meant to be taken literally, that we're talking about pelting anyone to death with stones.

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:01PM

                  by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:01PM (#24323)

                  It's not an attack at all, it's a word used to describe someone based on their actions or words. It's no different than calling someone a "sociopath" if their behavior shows them to be such, or calling someone "selfless" or "fair" or "wise" or "foolish" or "selfish" or any other descriptor. If the shoe fits....

                  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:13PM

                    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:13PM (#24378)

                    It's no different than calling someone a "sociopath"

                    If you also have a tendency to call people sociopaths at the drop of a hat, I suppose...

                    --
                    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:49PM

        by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:49PM (#24260)

        A couple of things. First, it's weird to think of gay marriage as being a right. The concept never even existed in the 6000 years of human civilization until about 15 years ago. Now it's a "right."

        And it isn't even a "right" for straight people. The purpose of marriage licensing is to make divorces easier for the state to adjudicate, since 90% of contract law is arguing over whether or not a valid contract existed. The state gets dragged into divorce disputes because there's property involved. Marriage licensing is just a way to short circuit the process by making sure everybody is of legal age, not currently married to someone else, not being coerced, etc before they enter the contract so the courts don't have to decide these questions years later.

        Marriage licensing is not a special right or benefit or reward for straight people. Congratulations, gays, you now have access to gay divorce.

        --
        Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:32PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:32PM (#24298)

          Female voting wasn't a right for 6000 years of human civilization either, and only came about around 100 years ago or so. Then again, male voting wasn't a right either for most of 6000 years of human civilization except some brief periods such as in Athens, and then later with the advent of modern democratic governments. Are you going to argue now that people don't need these rights either? How about free speech? That doesn't exactly have a long history either, and still isn't a right in most places.

          • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:03PM

            by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:03PM (#24370)

            Women were denied their right to self-determination. Free speech rights are denied by oppressive governments. A "right" to marriage, gay or straight, is an invented thing. It's not a natural, unalienable right like speech.

            That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed by law, although it wasn't always necessarily forbidden by law, either. It just didn't exist as a concept until 15 years ago. To call marriage a "right" is to invent a right. Can we do that? Can we start inventing rights?

            --
            Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
            • (Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:24PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:24PM (#24385)

              Voting is a right, and it certainly isn't old, historically speaking. We invented it. If you want to say it's a necessary thing for self-determination, and that the self-determination is the fundamental right being protected, that's fine.

              Similarly, marriage has been a privilege (perhaps not exactly a "right") for some time too, though again not that long if you're talking about voluntary marriages (as opposed to arranged marriages). It's just that this privilege has only been accorded to certain people, namely hetersexuals, for various reasons (religion, tradition, dealing with inheritance, etc.). But in modern times, we generally recognize that people have the right to equality, to equal treatment under the law, and this means not giving special privileges to groups of people without a very good reason. (And when we do give special privileges for a good reason, it's to a small minority to try to help them achieve equality, such as the ADA which tries to help disabled people. We don't, or at least shouldn't, give special privileges to a vast majority at the expense of a minority.) The existence of the privilege of marriage (and its various benefits as discussed earlier, both financial and social) and it being restricted from a group of people violates this right to equal treatment under the law.

              So if we simply abolished legal marriage altogether, then yes, that would remove the inequality. However, not many people, even extreme libertarians, are in favor of abolishing at least some of the benefits of legal marriage (like inheritance). So unless we replace legal marriage with something else that treats everyone equally, we have to give marriage rights to gay people too. (And this isn't the end; group marriages are the next step after this. If two people can voluntarily enter into a union that provides various benefits, then three or four should be able to do the same or similar. Of course, there's some feasibility problems which would have to be worked out; obviously, we can't have a "marriage" of 100 people, and then expect the government to dole out Social Security or VA benefits for 99 indefinitely after one of them dies. Eliminating Social Security and many other government benefits in favor of a universal basic income would eliminate many of these problems however.)

        • (Score: 1) by Tangaroa on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:35PM

          by Tangaroa (682) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:35PM (#24304) Homepage

          A couple of things. First, it's weird to think of gay marriage as being a right. The concept never even existed in the 6000 years of human civilization until about 15 years ago. Now it's a "right."

          This can lead to an endless debate on what human rights are. Under the Lockean view of rights, you have the right to do anything that is not against the law and that causes no direct financial harm to anyone else. In this perspective, gay marriage may not have existed but it was a human right until it was made illegal by the state government, at which point is was not a human right anymore. Rousseau was more explicit in saying that one gives up one set of human rights to become a member of civilization in exchange for the protection of a subset of human rights. Paine disagreed with Rousseau on this point and attempted to erase the distinction Rousseau made between natural and civil rights. The French Declaration of Rights went against Locke's idea of parliamentary supremacy and limited the authority of government to matters where one person causes harm to another, and then the French killed everyone who publicly disagreed with any policy of the Directory. Different viewpoints on the subject get more divergent and confusing from there.

          • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:11PM

            by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @06:11PM (#24377)

            If I'm not mistaken, it's only recently been a few states that ever made gay marriage illegal. For the rest of human civilization it wasn't "illegal," it just didn't exist as a thing to be legal or illegal.

            But you're correct, this idea of a recently invented "right" opens a can of worms. What other rights do we have that we don't know about? Why don't we have a right to food, to shelter, to clothing? Should the government grant us those rights, too?

            --
            Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Leebert on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:54PM

    by Leebert (3511) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:54PM (#24102)

    This whole thing is ridiculous. To me, it's pretty clear that OkCupid is doing this to get attention.

    This reminds me of that whole Arizona thing... I find it absolutely astounding how it was OK for the gay hairdresser of the Arizona governor to refuse to do the governor's hair anymore due to her beliefs, but people want to insist that a photographer not be permitted to decline to take photos at a gay wedding because the photographer disagrees with gay marriage.

    The Mozilla Foundation isn't in any way actively harming people's rights. This isn't AT&T giving access to the NSA. That's an action that you can reasonably boycott. This is a guy's personal opinion that has no real bearing on his job.

    For the record, I have a religious opposition to homosexuality. I also voted FOR gay marriage in my state because, despite my opposition, what consenting adults do with other consenting adults is neither any of my business nor any of my interest. One can hold an ideology while still protecting the rights of others...

    I swear. Bread and circuses... keep us arguing about pointless crap while actual things that matter go unresolved.

    Whew. That was cathartic. I feel better.

    • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:59PM

      by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:59PM (#24268)

      You are right on. The powers that be love these phony social "debates" because they keep people distracted from the wholesale theft of actual rights, wealth and human dignity that goes on every day between Capitol Hill and K Street. People are getting bombed, tortured, imprisoned indefinitely in our name, but ignore that! Dudes are kissing dudes! Gross!

      Also, people should have every right to refuse to participate in a gay marriage. I'm Catholic, it is against my religion to participate in a gay marriage. I don't care what the state decides to do about issuing marriage licenses (which are really just a method of making divorces easier for the state to adjudicate), but my religion says no. Should I be compelled to violate my religious principles?

      I'm completely fine with the state sanctioning gay marriage (although I will vote neither for nor against it), so long as they don't force churches to do so.

      --
      Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @05:29PM (#24343)

      "The Mozilla Foundation isn't in any way actively harming people's rights."

      Nah, they just put a guy who uses his money to harm people's rights in charge of the company... and then their employees asked for our help.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:21PM (#24421)

        Only some of them did. Others are coming out and basically saying 'shut up your hurting our company'. This stinks of a small minority of a minority coming out and saying something 'we all think' when it really is '*I* think'...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:08PM (#24443)
          Gee... think that small minority is around 10%?
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:44PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:44PM (#24459)

            Sure why not? Have not see stats that say otherwise.

            But my point was sometimes people overstep their authority to speak for others. Especially if they are pissed off about something. I had neighbors who would regularly do that. Putting up passive aggressive notes 'from everyone in the neighborhood'. Until I asked around then I find out oh its just you who are pissed off... This smells like that.

            but dont take my word for it...
            http://christianheilmann.com/2014/03/31/on-hating/ [christianheilmann.com]
            http://www.twobraids.com/2014/03/the-mozilla-ceo.h tml [twobraids.com]
            http://bholley.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/on-brendan -eich-and-the-thought-police/ [wordpress.com]

            But I will let you get back to nitpicking details and your all around rage machine.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:51PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:51PM (#24462)
              > But I will let you get back to nitpicking details and your all around rage machine. You don't get the significant of that number. Figures.
    • (Score: 1) by guises on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:09PM

      by guises (3116) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:09PM (#24494)

      It does seem pretty hypocritical to condemn Mozilla for having a single bigoted person while, in the same sentence, endorsing Microsoft and Apple as "more ethical" alternatives.

      Your comment about the wedding photographer brings up an interesting issue, and a slippery slope: discrimination can't be permitted, but it does seem a little much to force someone to actually participate in the ceremony that they find heretical. On the other hand, it would be awfully difficult to craft legislation which would allow only just the right amount of discrimination. You can envision another situation - say there's a pharmacist who doesn't want to sell condoms to a gay person or couple. This, in my mind, is clearly over the line and entirely plausible given that something similar has already happened with a pharmacist and Morning After pills.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:41PM (#24256)

    Does OKCupid have a message for residents of states where same sex marriage is not allowed urging them to move to a state where it's allowed?
    It's depressing to see people jumping on the smear campaign against an induvidual for a donation to a political campaign.
    Labeling people and assigning motives and opinions to them which they themselves have not expressed is very dishonest and morally corrupt.
    Claiming that an issue like this is either you hate gays or support them is quite the opposite of open minded, but refusing to accept that there might be points of views other then your own seems common among fanatics. I've heard members of the gay community that were opposed to gay marriage and I wouldn't accuse them of being anti LGBT, people have different opinions and in this case a majority of californians didn't want same sex marriage, which has resulted in vandalism and even death threats against some people supporting prop 8. I can't help but feel that people trying to be civilized and work within the system are not the problem.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by bryan on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:27PM

    by bryan (29) <bryan@pipedot.org> on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:27PM (#24424) Homepage Journal

    instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

    So... you are suggesting that they use IE?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Marand on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:56PM

    by Marand (1081) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:56PM (#24438) Journal

    To continue to the main page, the protest page's link at the bottom requires Javascript to function. The language designed by the same person they're encouraging a Mozilla boycott over.

    I'd rather see a boycott of Javascript than Firefox, personally. Maybe we could finally get something nicer to work with in the browser.