We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better.
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.
As of this time, there is no named successor or statement on who will be taking over Mozilla's leadership.
Related Stories
Former Mozilla CEO Launches Brave, a New Adblock Browser
Brave Software, a new startup by Brendan Eich (creator of the JavaScript programming language and former CEO of Mozilla), unveiled the new Brave browser today for Windows, Mac OS X, Android, and iOS. The Brave browser is currently in beta, based on Chromium, and aims to block most advertisements, while still potentially making money for publishers.
Brave will block all non-native ads, trackers, analytics scripts and impression-tracking pixels. However, the browser will eventually insert advertisements of its own, but which Brendan Eich claims to be unintrusive, with no persistent user id or highly re-identifiable cookie. The aim of Brave isn't to create a list of approved advertisers, or to aggressively pursue ad dollars: "We hope our users will form a valuable enough audience that our browser-side anonymous targeting will get ads from the buy side organically. We don't want to play games."
Beyond privacy protection, Eich promises Brave's browser will come with a speed boost: It loads pages two to four times faster than other smartphone browsers and 1.4 times faster than other browsers for personal computers.
[Continues...]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Lagg on Thursday April 03 2014, @07:55PM
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:38PM
Maybe they didn't know, until someone scoured the Prop8 donor list and found his name there.
There's other sources saying he's "infamous" for other, similar (anti-gay) actions? That's news to me, and I read through all the comments on this story both here and on that other site, and didn't see anyone bring this up.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:19PM
It was well known it was covered in newspapers and sites in 2012.
However what I have a hard time understanding is this unforgiving attitude towards the man that said the following:
"A number of Mozillians, including LGBT individuals and allies, have stepped forward to offer guidance and assistance in this. I cannot thank you enough, and I ask for your ongoing help to make Mozilla a place of equality and welcome for all. Here are my commitments, and here’s what you can expect:
Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.
Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn’t make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.
My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.
My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below."
Seems the only hate is the hate directed at Brendan.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday April 04 2014, @12:27AM
I'm somewhat on the fence about it too.
While I don't believe that such viewpoints can be found in leadership for an open source community with those values, I have to support the man's freedoms to express his views.
I know there are some very religious people that donated to prop8 because their religion demanded nothing less. Support for prop8 does not indicate the level of hatred that is supposedly motivating this man. He can genuinely feel this way and still wish LGBT couples to be happy and prosperous. Just not married before God.
So until I start seeing video or articles in which the man sounds like the Westboro Baptist Church going on and on about those people are destined for the fires of hell, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is more or less a good person.
He just can't be the CEO of Mozilla since that is a full contradiction in the values to include everyone fairly. The religious position was his choice and religious people always have to make sacrifices to find a happy medium in a secular society.
Now Mozilla will have new leader ship. We can stop demonizing him.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @01:45AM
I think Brendan is not a bad person, even though I may disagree with his beliefs. I think those who condemn him for speaking his mind are just as hateful as the bigots who condemn gays and lesbians as "bad people" solely because of their sexual orientation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @06:05AM
Couldn't agree more. I don't see any essential significant difference between the WBC and Mozilla now; if anything Mozilla is worse because they actually have some power beyond harassment (not that I want to belittle despicable harassment). My only sympathy goes to those who don't think it's a good idea to politicize their sexuality whatever it might be (be as flaming obvious as you like, that's not what this is about, if anyone has a problem with that it should be their problem not yours and likewise for anyone who has a problem with people who aren't gay).
The difference between
1.: firing someone because they're in favor of homosexuality or are gay
and
2.: firing someone because they're not in favor of homosexuality or are not gay,
can the rest of you really spot it?
Maybe some people wonder what I mean by politicized, well this piece of news is already being reported all over the world or at least western Europe. If you don't find that the least bit peculiar you're not even trying to "look around you" :|
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by naubol on Friday April 04 2014, @04:42AM
Please, if he had gave money to an organization that wishes to remove the right to vote from women, the pitchforks would have made a forest. You may not care that much about gay rights, but he was a prominent person in a prominent organization. It isn't hate that I feel, it is a sense of deep concern that someone like him is tolerated in a position like that.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday April 04 2014, @04:48AM
Well, it amounts to "I accept your right to be LGBT until you step off Mozilla property"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @04:57AM
Well, if we are going to be unreasonable about it, how comfortable should a mormon feel with a gay CEO? And should people mob up and harrass a gay CEO until he steps down so that everybody can be happy? What it seems to boil down to is that you should have no views that could offend ANYONE, which pretty much means you should have no views at all, which is also sure to offend some people, so let's just decide that CEOs are bad.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday April 04 2014, @05:36AM
You think this hasn't already happened? Both before and after the selection of CEO?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:20AM
Isn't that a standard question, when applying for a job as CEO? "Do you have any skeletons in the closet that could become a problem for the image of this company?"
If that question was not asked in this case, somebody failed at due diligence.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tierack on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:24PM
From an interview with Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker referenced in this article at Re/code [recode.net]:
So, they knew, they thought about it, and they came to an incorrect conclusion.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by samjam on Thursday April 03 2014, @07:55PM
so do we expect revenge houndings now?
this brave new world is just as bad as the old one
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:07PM
Think about it from the perspective of a shareholder (and nevermind whether or not Mozilla has "shareholders," you get the point) with a stake in the organization: Personal opinions aside, putting such a controversial guy in charge is bad for business, and will impede accomplishing goals. It all boils down to business. This is the kind of shit that will sink any politician's career, because they're held to a higher standard, especially if they represent a liberal-leaning organization.
If Mozilla needed that one guy that bad, they could have set up a dummy puppet who's good at public speaking to be a straw-president for Brendan Eich. That thousand bucks he donated could have been better spent on a cruise for 2 from California to Cabo, or feeding a thousand starving African families for a month, or helped out with a scholarship for underprivileged youths. Had he just said a slur or something I would have laughed, but actually going out of your way to donate? As The Police hit single goes, "Don't stand so close to me..."
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:27PM
> As The Police hit single goes, "Don't stand so close to me..."
Are you trying to say he's a child molester too?
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:36PM
Replying anon because offtopic, but despite your sarcasm(that was sarcasm, right?) hating gays is almost as bad, in the public eye, and in fact I predict that racial and/or sexual bigots will eventually be treated as badly, with registries and all -- gotta keep those private prisons profitable somehow.
Shit, our military is one of the most conservative organizations on the planet, and even they're mainstreaming gays. That's gotta tell you something.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:43PM
I think this is a bit ridiculous. The US still has the First Amendment, and we still have idiots like the KKK and WBC. People can say whatever they want here without worrying about going to prison (just don't get caught with a naturally-growing plant that most Americans now think is far less harmful than alcohol). However, having free speech doesn't mean everyone has to put up with you and be nice to you; they're free to shun you, fire you, refuse to do business with you, call you names, etc.
The military isn't that conservative; it integrated black people faster than a lot of other areas of society did. The military is nothing if not pragmatic, and if being inclusive of others helps them get the mission done better and faster, that's what they'll do.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:58PM
" However, having free speech doesn't mean everyone has to put up with you and be nice to you; they're free to shun you, fire you, refuse to do business with you, call you names, etc."
Wow, so what you're saying is that it's ok to do those things if someone for instance supports gay rights or womens rights? Or does this only apply with opinions that differs from yours?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by youngatheart on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:27PM
This only applies to people who are on the unpopular side of the politically correct majority. Obviously.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cwix on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:38PM
You and everyone else in the country has the right to free speech (Donating money) You do not have the right to be free from criticism (which is others' free speech).
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:50PM
You're right of course. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek but the simple reality is that if you speak against the majority politically correct opinion, you're far more likely to suffer than if you speak to agree with it. The broader reality is that people who need good public opinion suffer the most any time they are involved with anything controversial and sometimes just if they're interesting.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @06:27AM
And if you're not on the right side whatever that is now or in the future then you're out of luck and a job and any rights at all in practice. You just now saw it happen. Same reason you have no rights when commenting on most "news" sites: you'll just disappear if that is in any way convenient, that's pure unmitigated fascism in full practice.
That's not something anyone ought to support because it makes them themselves hypocrites and bigots no matter what opinion they should happen to hold or oppose.
I find it dismaying that a lot of people seem unable to understand something this simple, never mind all that follows.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1) by velex on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:43PM
Well, what's the alternative?
If somebody is giving money to a political cause I disapprove of, why should I give that person money? I dropped Firefox when I heard the browser was getting ads.
What exactly are you suggesting?
I've had the cops called on me just because some jackass Dairy Queen owner thought I was one gender and then discovered evidence that I might be another gender. It's his business, and he had every right to freak out and call the cops. He won't need to worry about getting any more of my money, and now we're both happy. It works both ways.
What about Hobby Lobby or Chik-Filla (or whatever it's called)? Are you saying that I should be forced to spend money at those businesses? Why can't I have the free choice to decide that I'd prefer not to shop at Hobby Lobby, Chik-Filla, Dairy Queen, or use a Mozilla browser that may get in-application ads and certainly gets compensation from Google every time I use the search widget.
With apologies to Voltaire, I'd defend this guy's right to say whatever shit he wants to the death. However, he isn't free from the consequences of using his right to free speech. And I sure as hell have the freedom to decide where I spend my money and click-throughs.
You know, isn't that great? Christians who believe I'm going to burn in eternal hellfire and am attempting to turn their sons into faggots and for whatever reason trying to turn their democracy into a socialism (with my libertarian leanings??? I guess?? I try not to make sense of it) can shop at Hobby Lobby, get some dinner at Chick-Filla, and have some crap ice cream at Diary Queen to their heart's content.
Hell, I've said before and I'll say it again. Why don't those businesses and other businesses like those just put up signs that say LGBT Not Welcome so I can know for sure to take my money elsewhere?
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Friday April 04 2014, @02:57PM
No, it's legally permissible to do it any time. It's called "freedom of association". It should be fairly obvious that this necessarily leads to the phenomenon whereby people who vocalize unpopular opinions themselves become unpopular, and people don't want to associate with them. Yes, that means that if you say something unpopular, will may suffer negative consequences. That's the way it works in a place with freedom of speech and freedom of association. You can say whatever idiotic crap you want, and I'm free to take my business elsewhere, criticize you, call you a bigot or other names, call for your resignation or firing, etc.
It's not just "politically correct" stuff; it entirely varies by location and context. Spouting anti-LGBT stuff in the liberal cities of California is not going to win you many friends there. Similarly, spouting pro-LGBT messages in rural Mississippi or Nebraska isn't likely to win you many friends there either. If Eich had taken a position as CEO of some oil pipeline company in Missouri, he probably wouldn't have had any trouble. Instead, he tried to take a top position in Mountain View, California, right next to San Francisco which is famous for being a LGBT hotspot and ultra-liberal, at a company that promises in its mission statement to be non-discriminatory and seems to take that seriously. The only way he could have screwed up worse is if he had tried to take an executive position at HuffPost or Starbucks, as those places would have kicked him out within minutes of finding out about his public political stance on LGBT.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by evilviper on Friday April 04 2014, @01:03AM
Oh good... Prepare for a rash of gay-marriage SUPPORTERS being fired from their jobs in 3... 2... 1...
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 1) by Grishnakh on Friday April 04 2014, @02:27PM
Unfortunately, that's quite possible. However, the gay-marriage supporters tend not to be as vocal; such a person working at a place with ultra-conservative bosses probably knows enough to keep their mouth shut at work. Also, your typical liberal gay-marriage supporter probably doesn't donate thousands of dollars to PACs like that.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:01PM
I'm not defending the guy and I don't subscribe to his point of view. I just thought it was a particularly amusing choice of metaphor in the context of a discussion about bigotry vs. vigilante justice.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 3, Informative) by fliptop on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:51PM
I dunno, Robert Byrd [wikipedia.org] seemed to escape unscathed.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:28PM
Not just him: Strohm Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and many other unrepentant bigots had very successful political careers. They arguably did better than the repenting former bigots like George Wallace.
One reason bigotry doesn't cost politicians their careers is that there still are a lot of bigots out there in the electorate who express their bigotry at the ballot box. For example, Ohio generally has a slight Republican majority in the electorate, but when in 2006 the Ohio Republican Party ran a black candidate for governor his white Democratic opponent won in a landslide. In that same election, white Republican candidates got the same support they always had, and the black Republican in question (Ken Blackwell) was a well-qualified and well-known candidate with solidly conservative credentials, so I highly doubt that the odd-looking result for governor had anything to do with the Ohio electorate suddenly all becoming Democratic supporters.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:52PM
FYI: In development docs, the term for someone like that is, fittingly enough, "stakeholder."
Other than that, I don't have much to add other than that your (surprisingly lucid ;) ) post pretty much nails it down, AFAIC.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @02:30AM
Shareholder?
Isn't Mozilla a non-profit? Working for the benefit of the many, not the vocal few?
Aren't the "shareholders" those who have supported Mozilla's rise to prominance? People like Eich and myself? Are these shareholders no longer welcome?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:22PM
At some point I wish we as a society could get it through our heads that two wrongs don't make a right. Grown-ups sometimes have to deal with people who disagree with them. It's hard to see how punishing someone for his past political support is morally superior to punishing someone for his sexual orientation. To me that just looks like two kinds of blind hate, both repugnant.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by starcraftsicko on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:45PM
This. Exactly this. You can't claim to believe in freedom of speech and still support mob hate of people with different opinions.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:10PM
Bullshit.
He has freedom of speach. He may voice his opinion, no matter how stupid, but that opinion might influence the behavior of other people.
And calling for a boycot is not 'mob hate'. They were simply pointing out that he could never fullfill the promisses mozilla made.
(Score: 2) by cwix on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:41PM
This is exactly what I have been trying to say.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:57PM
And both of you are wrong.
You've stripped a person of his political free will and his job, on the assumption he couldn't possibly do his job with his set of beliefs.
That is bigotry pure and simple. Very odd that you claim to be able to detect bigotry in everyone else while being oblivious to your own.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:31AM
> You've stripped a person of his political free will and his job,
> on the assumption he couldn't possibly do his job with his set of beliefs.
When his expressed and acted on beliefs are in direct contradiction with a portion of the job's responsibilities then to insist that everybody is simply assuming he can't do it is willful blindness.
Of course, that kind of blindness isn't anything new, we keep hiring telecom lobbyists to run the FCC.
(Score: 1) by rochrist on Friday April 04 2014, @08:36PM
I love the smell of the 'your intolerance or my intolerance is intolerance' argument.!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @01:15AM
Speech. blah. .
.
Shenanigans on your 'bullshit'. Boycott is exactly the economic expression of mob hate. It may even be justified sometimes, but I'm not sure this is the time.
.
Mozilla develops software -- the CEO's political contributions really shouldn't be an issue unless they tie somehow to policy. If Mozilla started blocking sites that supported gay marriage or if the company started firing employees who were gay and married, that'd be a real problem.
.
I guess I'll try to make the point by reversing the situation. Do you remember the 'Christian Coalition'? Neither do I -- Not even sure the still exist in as a relevant political force... but I seem to remember that they were the type of faith-based 'family values' organization that would be against 'gay marriage'. So...
.
Imagine that Bank Of America promoted an internal employee to CEO. And just for fun, imagine that he once donated $1000 to an organization that was working to defeat Prop8. And that some CC folks found out about this...
[Why BoA? Because I think they suck. And because their corporate HQ is close to where I think a lot of 'Christian Coalition' folks would stereotypically live.]
.
So of course the CC folks protest and announce a boycott and demand his ouster. To be clear, this is not a piddly little OK Cupid web whine boycott. This is several million stereotypical CC sheeple closing real accounts and costing actual shareholders actual money. You bet there'd be a reaction.
.
So... please pick YOUR reaction to the story:
.
A) Yay CC using your power of FREE SPEECH and the power of the purse to keep people you might disagree with from leading corporations! I fully support your RIGHT to keep people who like gay marriage from ever obtaining positions of power or influence and will declare Bullshit on all who oppose you!
.
B) Boo CC for abusing your power of FREE SPEECH and power of the purse to tear down and silence those who disagree with you and were just working to defend the rights of others! I acknowledge your RIGHT to participate but feel it is unreasonable for you to sue that to deny others careers in unrelated areas!
.
.
.
Mr. Eich participated in a mainstream political discussion and debate. He did so in a very mainstream way by making a small political donation. He wasn't manning barricades, or beating up would-be opponents, or actively terrorizing the opposition. He didn't pour millions into a (super?)PAC. He didn't appear in advertisements or lead rallies. He hasn't used his position(s) of alleged importance to launch attacks against political opponents. Besides that, he may well be a giant douche, but I have no evidence of this.
.
He should not have his career options limited in this way.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:38AM
> Mozilla develops software -- the CEO's political contributions really
> shouldn't be an issue unless they tie somehow to policy.
No, developing software is one way in which they implement their vision which is that "openness, innovation and opportunity are key to the continued health of the internet." [mozilla.org] Eichs beliefs and even more importantly his actions are in contradiction with that vision - opportunity only for some is not really opportunity at all, it is privilege.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @04:03AM
Not sure what you mean by this enough to respond. Feel free to clarify:
.
"his actions" - Anything here other than a political donation? I want to make sure that I'm not missing something. Actions implies plural if nothing else, so feel free to pile on.
.
"opportunity only for some is not really opportunity at all" - I really have no idea where you are going here. Giving employment advancement opportunities only to those who march in political lock-step with you does seem contrary to Mozilla's vision, but this doesn't seem to be what you mean in context. So I'm confused.
.
"it is privilege" - Again, no idea what you mean? Being a CEO is a privilege? Participation in the political process is a privilege? I'm lost.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @06:20AM
> privilege
Marriage for the privileged.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @09:43AM
*sigh* So I'll talk about the underlying issue and express an unpopular opinion.
.
Marriage is a privilege in the USofA. Anything that requires the permission of the government, the regulation of the government, the participation of government, is a privilege granted by that government. By demanding the government's recognition and role, you concede their participation and the relegation to privilege. By living in a [pseudo] democracy, you are dependent on the will of the majority for that privilege. Better keep the mobs happy, eh?
.
And that regulation is real. This [wikipedia.org] may make interesting reading. Sometimes the government bestows the privilege on the unwilling, to their detriment. And they do this to the cheering of the mobs. They (we?) want this regulation. We limit the types of relationships and the age [about.com] of the participation.
.
At least in my lifetime [limited sample >1975], marriage [modern, western, hetero, puritan] has been available to nearly all individuals [age restrictions apply] individuals in the USofA. It's regulated; limited by "tradition" to a single valid combination with occasional, controversial deviations. Anyone can get married, but not any combination. So in spite of the government's participation, the statement that access to marriage has been prohibited to any individual, except due to limited age, is specious.
.
Discussion and reconsideration of what combinations of people government(s) what to grant this privilege to has been active of late. Marriage has been conflated with sexual activity [wikipedia.org] despite the fact we've mostly separated these everywhere else in Western society leading to fundamentalism on both sides. Which brings us back to our starting point.
.
If government can grant the privilege of marriage based on rules that it thinks are right or just or otherwise correct, it can change its mind about it later if it has a different view of rightness or justness. That makes the Arabian, or the Iranian, or the Chinese, or the Russian or the Texan or the Nigerian position valid (and fundamentally reasonable) in their respective places. I'm not sure I like that; moral relativism can be uncomfortable.
.
If government MUST ACCEPT different combinations if a court or political figure or mob says so, then it's participation is meaningless and wasteful. Even seeking the consent or participation of government is pointless as their consent indicates nothing.
.
If only one set of rules can EVER be right or just or valid, then government can be a gatekeeper enforcing those rules. Problem here is that our best justifications tend to be traditional (often expressed as religious), and we get stumped when we try to dig into "why". And if the rules can change -- gay marriage -- we get pushed back on the prior cases.
.
My view - Unless government wants to be in the business of criminalizing reproduction between unmarried individuals, they should get out of the marriage business altogether. Those positions are philosophically consistent - others trip on their own hypocrisy pretty quick. The current situation and the fundamentalisms created are monumentally dumb. The current situation fails the "why" test as surely as the the traditional.
.
But getting someone fired for participation in protected political speech (SCOTUS says spending = speech) reeks of mob fundamentalism at best and victor's justice at worst. If we want to live in a world where that's acceptable, we had best recognize that others can do the same. So... go Vikings! [cbsnews.com]?
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @12:18PM
> But getting someone fired for participation in protected political speech
Skipped most of your sophistry, but that particular bit is such a common meme it needs to be quashed.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for your speech. If you have a job that depends on public opinion then losing your job because of public opinion is part of the deal. If you can't handle that risk, don't take that kind of job in the first place.
Your personal problem here is that you don't agree with public opinion. Own that instead of trying to employ pretzel logic to dance around it.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday April 04 2014, @01:55PM
It's possible to agree that gay people should be able to get married if they want, yet disagree with tarring and feathering someone who opposes that position.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @03:29PM
> It's possible to agree that gay people should be able to get married if they want,
> yet disagree with tarring and feathering someone who opposes that position.
This isn't about just someone. This is about someone who wanted to represent an organization that claims a set of principles in contradiction with that belief.
Every time someone defends Eich they have to leave out part of the story. That you have to lie through omission to make your point pretty much proves your point is invalid.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GeminiDomino on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:54PM
Ah, the old "If you're against intolerance, you have to tolerate intolerance" dodge.
It wasn't particularly clever the first time it was attempted, and hasn't become any more so in its endless echoing.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Tork on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:57PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:17PM
a big diff: our hate of him takes him out of power. his funding/hate for gays removes their rights.
which is better: that one man lose his job or that so many others lose a right they should not be losing?
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by threedigits on Friday April 04 2014, @08:13AM
What power? The power of leading a free browser development organization?
No, face it as it is: your deliberated hate actions make his life more miserable, just because he has different beliefs than you. I'm deeply sorry, but I cannot support this kind of behaviour.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday April 04 2014, @09:18PM
he can have different beliefs all he wants.
what he CANNOT be allowed to do is to force others (by rule of law) to follow HIS views.
his views are toxic. he's an asshole (by his views, alone, I can say this confidently). also he created javascript so that makes him double the asshole (sorry..)
my hate is for him, alone. he wants to restrict other peoples' freedom. not one person but everyone who fits into this group of people he seems to think are 'wrong'.
hating one person for trying to force his views on everyone else is not a bad thing.
hating a whole group of people because they believe differently AND trying to take away their rights is quite evil.
again, this is not moral relativism. there IS an absolute right and wrong here. only christians and muslims seem to absolutely hate gays. other religions don't universally have a problem with them and most modern non-religious people also have no problems with gays.
gays are the new 'blacks'. it was wrong to hate black people and to remove their rights and its equally as wrong to hate gays and to try to remove their rights.
all based on his christian views. what a fucking waste. I never understood why christians have to get 'in other peoples shit' so much. why can't they just accept that their views are not held by everyone and leave it at that? why FORCE everyone to adopt their tiny narrow world views? no one ever voted them speakers for the whole world or even the US.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by threedigits on Tuesday April 08 2014, @04:10PM
OK, let's dot a few "i" and cross a few "t":
AFAIK, this is NOT what the law proposal he backed was about. It did not criminalize gays or their union, just the ability to call their union "marriage".
I translate that as "I don't like him". So what?
Hate is not a positive feeling. You will do bad if you let it drive your decisions.
That's right. That's what laws are about.
Yes, it is. Arguing is right, as is opposing to. Hating is another thing altogether.
I haven't seen hate in any of his actions. He has a moral position, which may be wrong, but doesn't imply hate.
My personal observation is that right or wrong are always relative to who you ask. For example, you may consider which evil is greater: opposing gay marriage (which is something that can be reverted) or banning someone from a job for his political positions (which cannot be undone). Consider that here Mozilla as a whole has suffered as much damage as Eich. I personally find the second one much worse.
So, are christians the next "blacks"? Please, don't do that. Use your reason, and do not spread hate. Specially undiscriminating hate.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:53PM
> It's hard to see how punishing someone for his past political support is
> morally superior to punishing someone for his sexual orientation.
You seem to be the kind of person who confuses the form of a thing with the meaning of a thing.
Eich actively tried to hurt other people who had never done a thing to hurt him or anyone else. Forcing him to resign as a consequence for hurting other people is not in any way equivalent.
(Score: 0) by starcraftsicko on Friday April 04 2014, @01:28AM
Who and how?
.
Eich participated in a mainstream political discussion/movement in a mainstream and minimal way. He was not the face of the movement. He was not the voice of the movement. He did not mastermind the movement. He was not even a major contributor to the movement.
.
Maybe he hurt some feelings?
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:25AM
He paid people to try to prevent gay people from being full fledged members of society.
All that "mainstream" stuff is hooey. People were saying the same thing about emancipation and miscegenation -- being "mainstream" doesn't make it any less harmful to the people who were hurt, nor does being a follower rather than a leader excuse it either.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @06:41AM
And you're successfully preventing non-gay people from being fully fledged members of society.
Or are you really going to "answer" "only if they speak"? What you're showing or supporting isn't pride, nowhere close. At best you're being used.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:36AM
How far right wing does one have to consider "not a CEO" equivalent to "not a fully fledged member of society"?
Nobody said he couldn't work at Mozilla. He could be the CFO. Nobody cares about a CFO. He could possibly even be a CTO, though the developers might care too much in that case.
But the CEO is personifying the image of the company. By making him CEO, they were endorsing his views.
Also, note that Mozilla is allowed to endorse those views, if that's the image they want. Just like Chick-Fil-A is allowed to. But in that case, they shouldn't expect us to buy/use their products.
Chick-Fil-A was fine with that image. Mozilla was not. That's the difference.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @04:01PM
One doesn't have to be anything at all: what you're saying is that some jobs aren't allowed for $group, it doesn't matter if your $group is gays, non-gays, whites, blacks, catholics, protestants, atheists, communists, socialists, nazis, democrats, republicans, or anything else.
Minorities won't win such fights so in effect this is minorities dismantling legal protection for minorities.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by hubie on Friday April 04 2014, @01:32AM
I think there can be quite a difference between having a moral objection to something and actively trying to hurt other people.
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Friday April 04 2014, @02:21AM
Yes, there certainly can be. But he didn't just object, he acted by paying people to try to stop gay people from marrying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @12:48AM
"Grown-ups sometimes have to deal with people who disagree with them."
Disagreement is one thing.
Eich actively attempted to CONTROL THE LIVES OF OTHERS.
If you cannot discern the difference you are, quite frankly, mentally deficient.
I am a straight guy who likes women a lot, but I am disgusted by bigots
like Eich who want to force others to conform to their world view. Such
people are the enemy of all freedom loving humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @01:29AM
That's why you try very hard to force them to conform to your world view, because YOUR world view is, by definition, the right one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @09:40AM
Nobody is trying to make him conform to anything.
We just don't want to use Mozilla products (like Firefox) as the same time as Mozilla has him as CEO.
It's up to Mozilla to decide whether they want to continue endorsing his views (making someone a CEO is the biggest endorsement a company can give him), or they want to keep us as Firefox users. They have made their choice.
He is now free to be as much of a bigot as he wants to be, without worrying about how that affects the image of Mozilla.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:32PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:42PM
When I was in kindergarten there was a kid a couple of years older who would knock me down so I'd skin my knees and cry. I told my mom and her advice was useless. I told my brother and his advice was "you should knock _him_ down." So the next day I got behind him and wham! Knocked him down, made him cry. After that he steered clear of me.
So, yes, it's revenge and hate.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:45PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:19PM
just like joe pesci, it sounds like you're the kind of guy who can get things done!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @03:15AM
Getting a group of people to act in concert to intimidate someone until they fulfill your wish is not "standing up to a bully", it is called hounding or bullying (even though the target may be a bully himself, although I don't see how donating $1000 makes you a bully).
This is just a mild form of mob rule - if I get enough people on my side, I can make you do what I want.
Pushing someone to resign his job just because you disagree with his opinion is bigotry. Doing so because you perceive that he did something to hurt you in the past is revenge. Doing either with anger within you is hate.
So yes, it is a combination of revenge/hate/bigotry. Even victims of bigotry can be bigots themselves.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday April 04 2014, @04:29PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Insightful) by metamonkey on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:00PM
Yes, yes, a culture of openness unless you happen to have political or religious opinions we don't like.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mmcmonster on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:20PM
It's a matter of which is the lesser wrong. Would you rather they be slightly more open and allow the person ultimately responsible to be a racist or sexist? Or would you rather certain people just not be eligible for the job?
I personally believe that the CEO of any company believe that all the people working under him are equals in at least the most basic sense.
And I'm ashamed that more companies can't take that (fairly simple) stand.
(Score: 2) by snick on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:22PM
What wasn't open about the protest?
The idea that these people should have just shut up for free speech leaves me ... speechless.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday April 04 2014, @04:10PM
Eich wasn't trying to eject anybody from the Mozilla organization for their political or personal beliefs. He was the tolerant one in this conflict.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:30PM
This is the game hatemongers and bigots have played for years. "If you're for tolerance and respect, then you have to tolerate and respect us deciding to be intolerant and direspectful. Otherwise you're a HYPOCRITE!"
Mozilla's core value is that everyone is valuable and deserving of respect. AS LONG AS you're in line with that, you can think or be or believe whatever you want. But if you're NOT in line with that core value - if you think that it's OK to treat some other people as lesser or inferior, if you DON'T value everyone, then you're gone.
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:04PM
Indeed, and they often mistake disagreement for intolerance. I can be tolerant and respectful while at the same time disagreeing, even vocally.
I've seen plenty of arguments where one party turns to the other and says "well, you're intolerant of my beliefs/views!" No, surely being intolerant would be descending to name calling, or threatening violence to you because of your views. It would be campaigning to have your views made illegal or marginalised. It would be trying to irradicate your views and force those that hold them to the margins of society.
(Score: 1) by Lukehasnoname on Friday April 04 2014, @12:46AM
Exactly. Kind of like if you don't proclaim and love adherence to the Constitution, you should be declared un-American and have your citizenship revoked.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday April 04 2014, @04:04PM
I think you still need to tolerant intolerance. There are worthwhile arguments on both sides (admittedly the prop 8 media campaign was pretty disgusting from what I've seen). But just because something seems like a good, fadish idea now doesn't mean it is. There are social ramifications to messing with something as fundamental as the family unit. I do not know what all of those ramifications are, as I am not a prophet.
This has turned into a "if you're not with us then you are my enemy" situation, even though only a Sith deals in absolutes.
I'm Catholic, and my Church says dudes can't marry dudes. Now if the state wants to hand out licenses that says they can, well then they can. Render unto Caesar. I'm hesitant to deny people something they want that doesn't hurt me directly, so I abstain from any gay marriage vote. I will not vote for, because my Church says no, and I will not vote against, because I am not against gay marriage.
It's about 45 years now since Pope Paul VI published humanae vitae, the encyclical that addressed things like contraception and abortion. It was right when the pill came out, and right when that 'Population Bomb' book came out and people were terrified that in 20 years "hundreds of millions of people would starve to death" because of overpopulation, and therefore saying no to contraception was a laughable idea in American media.
But we didn't have the famines (except for those caused by political strife, not because there wasn't enough food). Nobody's eating soylent green. Current UN estimates say that population will cap out at about 9 billion in 2050 and then steady off or decline.
At the same time, pretty much all of Pope Paul's predictions about what would happen by opening the door to casual sex via the sexual revolution have come to pass. Destruction of the family unit, particularly among the most vulnerable like the poor and minorities. Sky high divorce rates. Neglected children from broken homes. Disease. The debasement of sex. The abundance of pornography has fundamentally altered the way young people approach sex. Young girls feel like they have to compete against porn stars, and are snapping naked pictures of themselves to put online, desperate for the attention of young men who'd rather jack it in front of a computer. Society is pretty fucked up. Paul wasn't wrong.
The Catholics at least are consistent, regardless of sexual orientation. Homosexuality isn't a sin, just homosexual acts. But so is masturbation, extramarital sex, and contraception. Basically anything that is not "open to new life," because sex is seen as a "procreative act." Homosexuals are not evil, it is not a sin to be a homosexual, there are homosexual parishioners, there are openly gay priests. Homosexuals, however, are called to chastity, just like heterosexuals are in instances where there is not the capability for the creation of new life. Catholics are expected to exhibit self-control, and telling that to an American? Good luck. And when we talk about the "sanctity of marriage," unlike the secular population, we mean it. We can't get divorced. Being Catholic is not easy.
The concept of gay marriage didn't even exist 20 years ago, and now it's a "right." You might say the Church (or other religious people opposed to gay marriage) is "intolerant." I would say you still need to tolerate that intolerance, because we as a society are not that smart. Before changing the fundamental building block of society, the definition of a marriage, which has been the same for thousands of years, a healthy debate is worthwhile. That debate, however, requires tolerance of people with a dissenting view, like Mr. Eich. Dissenting does not necessarily mean "hate," it can just mean "caution," because there is moral ambiguity here that a fool like me is simply not equipped to navigate.
Personally, I am not interested in stopping people who want to get gay married. I have attended two gay weddings for gay friends of mine, and they seem very happy. I would not want to stand in the way of that. But I do not claim the wisdom to understand the long-term ramifications of changing the fundamental building block of society so swiftly. Advising caution is not hate, it is not intolerance, and these opinions that dissent from the "Hollywood after school special" party line deserve tolerance and consideration. I know I'm a fool, but I'm very wary of anyone who thinks they aren't.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:37PM
> Yes, yes, a culture of openness unless you happen to take action for political or religious reasons that go against our mission statement.
FTFY.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dave on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:40PM
How can you sit idle when those opinions are the oppression of others? If he was an open racist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, because he hides behind the shield of "religious beliefs," we're expected to suffer his ignorance without action.
Nothing about you is permanent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:21PM
and..... we're done here. someone please turn off the lights.
when bigotry is behind religious curtains, it gets a free pass. and that should NOT be!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:29PM
Brilliant comment dave. It absolutely puts one part of this debate into stark contrast.
This ignorance you're referring to is exactly the same thing if you believe that marriage is a fundamental right of all people. If you can convince me of that, then you'll change my mind and I'll agree with you that this is the same thing. Do you believe that? I don't. I don't believe that polygamy is a right. I don't believe that child marriages are a right.
Of course most people who support gay marriage rights don't believe that either. There absolutely are differences, but huge cultures accept both of those things and it's also considered ignorant or bigoted to judge those cultures as inferior. Do you think those cultures are inferior?
Tell me, what do you think oppression is? Marriage between one man and one woman has long been a state sanctioned bond, with additional rights given to people who participate in it. The state gives extra rights to all sorts of people based on their situation. The state gives rights to exceed the speed limit and carry firearms in places forbidden to other people if they're acting as an officer of the law, do you think everyone denied those rights is being oppressed? The state gives the rights to judge court cases and make legally binding decisions to judges, do you think everyone who isn't allowed to issue legally binding judgements is being oppressed? A game warden has the right to demand to see someone's permits and game but I don't, am I oppressed?
If you say that you believe those things are oppression and that you think those other cultures are inferior, you won't convince me of your correctness, but you'll shock me with your consistency. I doubt you will.
If you want to convince me that denying gay marriage is oppression:
On the other hand, if you can't convince me with rational arguments for your position, then you're the one demonstrating ignorance. I'm not even that hard to convince since I find the very idea that the state should have any interest in my marriage extremely distasteful.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:28PM
A lot of people put gay marriage and polygamy in the same basket - fair enough - but they do this with the goal of showing that gay marriage is as bad as polygamy. But why should polygamy necessarily be a bad thing, if all of its participants are consenting and equal? A lot of people in the polyamoury community would take exception to classical notions that only bilateral heteronormative relationships are ethical. Since you mention it, the unethical nature of child marriages are somewhat easier to establish, since once can base an argument on power-imbalance, undue influence, ability to consent and so on that are already used to outlaw child-adult sexual relationships. Consenting polygamy (and even adult-adult incest) strikes me as being more difficult to find coherent secular arguments against.
Really, these issues of marriage (and even sexual relationships) boil down to matters of recognising the free self-determination of individuals. A unifying principle is that such volition should be impeded only where actual harm occurs (as opposed to the old saw "harm against the establishment of abstract concepts" such as marriage, society, decency, etc). I would personally be in support of everything from necrophilia to zoophilia if it could be shown that all parties were consenting and able to consent. To do otherwise would be to assert that my own standards are somehow better or more important than everyone else's,
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Friday April 04 2014, @12:47AM
I have had a variety of this type of discussion with quite a few people and I've taken various sides of the debates. Usually I've taken the positions you have with the exception of zoophilia which I have a hard time defending for informed consent, much as child marriages are difficult to defend. Saying "I know they wanted to" doesn't carry the same weight when the second party is incapable of understanding the ramifications of the decision.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Friday April 04 2014, @01:21AM
I do rather agree with you - hence the "if it could be shown". Often it is quite clear that consent cannot realistically be established, particularly in the cases you highlight.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2, Informative) by AdamHaun on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:33PM
There's no reason to do so other than animus towards gay people. This was demonstrated quite thoroughly in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (the Prop 8 trial). Transcripts are freely available [afer.org], and include great testimony from several expert witnesses chronicling the history of animus towards gays and lesbians, how the modern anti-gay rights movement's rhetoric ties in with that history, the benefits of marriage, and the lack of evidence for any problems due to gay marriage. None of the questions you're asking are new, and all of them have been discussed ad nauseum by people far more informed than those in the comments section of a news site. :-)
Nonetheless, I'll try to answer your specific questions.
States don't grant anyone the right to marry. Marriage is recognized as a universal right, both in U.S. law (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) and internationally (UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). Limits on marriage are akin to limits on other basic freedoms -- they exist, but there needs to be a good reason for them. By law and custom, marriage is a special relationship. It involves things like formalized joint property ownership, inheritance rights, power of attorney for medical decisions, and responsibility for and authority over children. Recognizing property, authority, and responsibility is absolutely within the purview of a government and legal system. State marriage is widely recognized by people, organizations, and nations in a way that private contracts aren't.
I don't have a good reason why they shouldn't. But it's not as straightforward to implement. For a monogamous gay marriage, you change "husband and wife" to "spouse and spouse" on the marriage certificate and everything else is functionally identical. Adding a third person requires a more complex legal arrangement. Also, at least in the polyamorous relationships I've seen in real life, some pairwise relationships are weaker than others. Not every person in the group necessarily wants to be fully legally married to every other. I think poly marriage would require something more complex than a married vs. unmarried distinction.
Denying child marriage is not oppression because children are unable to consent to such an obligation. My vague understanding is that polygamy has historically not been so great for the women involved. I suppose one could call banning polygamy "oppression", although it lacks the sort of violent persecution that homosexuals still face today.
Calling entire cultures inferior comes with a lot of colonial-era baggage. There's a lot more to Indian culture than child marriage. (Counting "Islamic culture" as a unified thing is questionable.) But I do think child marriage is wrong, and I do think the people who implement it are wrong for doing so. I agree that it's a cultural problem in places where it's widespread. But every culture has problems. They're complicated issues. There was a good National Geographic article [nationalgeographic.com] about child marriages a while back. Some people benefit from the status quo and don't care who gets hurt. Some people fight for change. Some people want change but feel that their hands are tied.
Adam Haun
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Friday April 04 2014, @02:22AM
You're quite right. I didn't read much on the topic, I wasn't personally drawn with any passion into the debates but I do follow this site's discussions with much more interest. Thank you for presenting some abbreviated versions here.
I remain unconvinced on the state's interest in marriage. I'd agree in recognizing the law and customs, but those same laws and customs often deny gay rights, which is the point. The question for me isn't what they accomplish, but why it is good and necessary that they accomplish it that way. You can throw the traditions out the window because they deny gay marriage on the one hand and I think they are a poor way of accomplishing those tasks as well.
"Adding a third person requires a more complex legal arrangement." Changing state laws to allow gay marriage may not be as complex, but it isn't easy or convenient, which leaves both without support on that basis. And your statement "some pairwise relationships are weaker than others. Not every person in the group necessarily wants to be fully legally married to every other." applies to hetero-sexual marriages equally in my own experience. Ditto for the idea of historical role of women. Certainly the violent persecution of homesexuals isn't the same, but I don't think changing the laws to allow gay marriage fixes that either.
If my state supported child marriages, I'd certainly fight to change that. I'm not fighting to change it in India. It may be immoral or wrong in my worldview, but I feel a much stronger obligation to work at a state level than at an international level. Likewise, I'm inclined to allow states to set their own laws on the subject and most interested in the laws that affect me and my family.
The only defensible reasons a state has for granting special rights to married people are tradition and procreation. I don't think either is sufficient in our society. Procreation is close since it can only happen accidentally in heterosexual unions, but adultery can occur lesbian unions and in hetero unions alike and that is already handled by the law, and I'm inclined to view it as similar. Lack of sufficient reason to change the status quo provides equal justification for not recognizing gay marriage or for ignoring marriage all together in the law. If I were writing the laws, I would draft a list of rights inherent with current law and say that anyone currently married is now in a civil union with the right to petition for a different contract for up to five years, and that anyone who gets married after the legislation passes must agree to a civil union contract including the same responsibilities and rights if they want it to be sanctioned by the state. But nobody seems to want that. Traditionalists seem to think that the word marriage needs to come from the state and gay marriage proponents seem to think that changing the name of the contract lessens the rights. Perhaps they're both right, but I'm hard pressed to understand why.
The single unyielding topic that I've avoided up until now is the Christian Bible, which condemns homosexual unions. It either is subject to being ignored completely or used as the authoritative yardstick to morality. I'm content to separate church and state and say that those who feel bound by that moral code should adhere to it, and the state should ignore it. I'm willing to concede that it may be the infallible word of God, but until God personally states it is his will that the states should adhere to it, I will see the state as an institution of man with the limitations of providing for society rather than the morality of its citizens. If you are God, then I'll accept whatever ruling you have to offer on the topic, but I doubt you are and will require substantial proof if you wish to make that claim.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday April 04 2014, @03:52PM
The purpose of state licensing of marriage is to facilitate state-mediated divorce.
90% of contract law involves arguing over whether or not a valid contract ever existed. The state gets dragged into divorce disputes because there are property and child custody issues at stake, and that's basically the point of government: settling property disputes without violence. Since the state is required to adjudicated these disputes, the family court system short-circuits the process and requires that people be licensed before entering the agreement so they can check the roles and make sure Bill isn't still married to Alice before he marries Sue, that everyone is of the legal age of consent, that no one is being coerced, etc.
The state has an interest in marriage because it is required to have interest in divorce. Really, that's all gays get when they win "the right to marry." They're really winning gay divorce.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:52PM
No one is stopping you from becoming a member of law enforcement, or a game warden, or anything else that has different job requirements and obligations than the job you currently have. If you don't like that a cop can drive over the speed limit and carry a gun, that is very different from preventing you from becoming a cop.
The state needs to establish legal guidelines regarding property ownership, which includes things like inheritance. One of the primary "special rights" that come with marriage is ownership of community property shared between the participants of the marriage contract. Another "special right" is to make health related decisions when the other member of the marriage contract is incapable of making that decision for themselves. Can a 2nd wife have the same rights as the 1st wife in a polygamous marriage? What if one of them wants to pull the plug and the other wants to spend the family fortune keeping their husband on life support?
I'm not going to take the low road that so many do and compare polygamy with child abuse and bestiality. They aren't the same thing at all, and deflecting the "but why can't we ..." question in that manner is disingenuous. A polygamous marriage is a much more complicated legal issue, and a marriage contract is a primarily a legal construct. I've stated just two of the major legal stumbling blocks above.
Outlawing child marriage is not oppression. As with all other contracts, those who agree to the contract must do so of their own free will and be of legal age. There are many more reasons child marriage is a bad idea, but I'm addressing your "special rights" argument.
No one is saying that Indian or Islamic culture is inferior. Anything that those cultures do in jurisdictions governed by their laws is their business. That doesn't necessarily make it right, just or fair, but it is their business. If we went out of our way to try to force other countries to change their laws to conform with our world views we'd end up in a lot more wars than we already do.
Now, regarding your statement "if you can't convince me with rational arguments for your position, then you're the one demonstrating ignorance". That's just bullshit. If you are steadfastly against something then there is nothing anyone can say to sway your position. That doesn't demonstrate ignorance on their part, unless you mean that they are ignorant of the fact that they are wasting their time trying to convince you of something you dismiss out of hand.
The state has a very real legal interest in your marriage contract. Without their interest your spouse has no legal rights or authority to act on your behalf or in your interests, and neither of you have rights to the shared community property without the state's blessing. You can't have it both ways. If you're only referring to the marriage performed by your house of worship, then the state doesn't give a crap about that. But if you signed a marriage license then you and your spouse signed a contract with the state, which you did of your own free will and from which you were granted "special rights".
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Friday April 04 2014, @01:39AM
You make a good case. I'm honestly a little surprised. I expected less rational responses.
I see your point about oppression, and while I could try to present counter-examples, I'm willing to skip it since I think the oppression topic doesn't really get anywhere until the other issues are settled. Oppression can only occur when someone is denied rights unjustly, and the other topics are about determining what is just.
There have been plenty of messy court cases where a spouse's rights were challenged, so polygamy doesn't get ruled out as a potentially equivalent system on the grounds of unresolved legal questions. Divorce and death cause all sorts of legal hassles precisely because the state has granted special rights to spouses. Getting a divorce in a gay marriage when you reside in a state that doesn't recognize them is a bit of a nightmare, but that isn't sufficient reason for not allowing the marriages.
If the issues of rights to make decisions and property were all that stood in the way of polygamy, then it would be quickly and easily overcome with required living wills and prenuptial agreements. (I'm not sure that wouldn't be a good idea for all marriages actually.)
While I'm willing to defend polygamy as reasonably equivalent, I'll concede that child marriage isn't. I am disgusted when people use "bigot" as if it is a talisman against disagreement. It siderails rational discourse. We all have some level of intolerance toward opinions that disagree with our own. My purpose in bringing up other cultures was to point out that calling someone a bigot as an argument is insupportable. You can argue against their beliefs rationally but using that word as shorthand is asking to be called a hypocrite.
You rightly point out that going out of our way to force other countries to change their laws to conform with our world views would lead to conflict. You specified war, but there are a variety of types of conflict short of war that we might also be avoiding. I'm good with that. I am afraid that my acceptance of that as a reasonable justification for not imposing our world view also extends to the states.
I remain unconvinced on the state's interest in my marriage contract. There are many, many potential ways to provide shared property rights without marriage. There are many ways to provide for medical issues and power of attorney in a variety of circumstances without even introducing new legislation.
You're half right. If I were steadfastly against something regardless of logic, you'd be right. I'm not. I have a history of being wrong initially and changing my position based on the insight of others. I intentionally made the discussion pivot on my own opinion, not a generic unspecified someone because I am willing to change my position if I can be shown why it is wrong. You've made some headway in that respect, in small part because of your specific arguments but in larger part due to the way you present them. It is always uncomfortable to realize you might be wrong, so I can't say I'm grateful, but I can say I respect your presentation, insight and attitude, and for that I thank you.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday April 04 2014, @12:17PM
You are correct that there are many, many potential ways to provide shared property rights without marriage. All of which garner interest from the state. Having other options does not exclude a marriage contract from providing that function, without updates for any additions or subtractions, ongoing inventory adjustments, etc. A paycheck automatically becomes community property, so does a winning lottery ticket, or even a penny found in the street. And let's not forget about the shared responsibilities and liabilities that come with a marriage contract.
I think the major difference between a marriage contract and other options regarding shared property rights is its exclusionary design. You can only ever enter into the contract with one other person at a time.
I am not familiar with divorce as it pertains to a polygamous marriage (and I doubt many in the US are). Is the departing spouse due a fixed percentage of the community property based on equal division? How is it divided when there are more personal interests to satisfy?
(Score: 2) by snick on Friday April 04 2014, @12:47AM
Child marriage is forbidden for the same reason that we don't allow children to sign contracts. (or if they do sign them, they are unenforceable)
Children are unable to give informed consent, and so are unable to enter into marriage or other legally binding contracts.
Equating this with the situation of adults (who are able to give consent) shows that you aren't thinking your analogy through.
Where some cultures disagree (and it is reasonable to disagree) is exactly when children reach the age of consent.
Cultures, on the other hand, who treat people (usually women or children) as property to be bartered or sold are objectively inferior. Fuck them.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Friday April 04 2014, @01:08AM
So if contract legalities are the only restriction, then (adult) incestuous marriages, polygamy, and more are perfectly okay?
If you oppose them, you're a bigot.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by snick on Friday April 04 2014, @01:54PM
Incest, when it results in children, has a detrimental health effect on the population as a whole. It is reasonable for a society to establish limits for this reason.
Plural marriage is inoffensive in of itself, but its practice (at least in the US) has often been closely associated with child marriage and coerced marriage. Assuming that these problematic practices can be controlled independently, then yeah. Objection to plural marriage is mere prejudice and the desire to control how others live.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Friday April 04 2014, @02:42PM
Not until every other thing people can do, that has detrimental health effects, is outlawed. And I see zero way in which getting a marriage license will affect those potential children.
Besides, this same argument goes against gay marriage just as well... People engaging in sodomy has a detrimental effect on the population as a whole, yet those laws were thrown out...
No. Marriage licenses have no effect on those issues, and vice versa. Whether they "can be controlled" or not doesn't have any bearing.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @10:09AM
>I don't believe that child marriages are a right.
TEH CHILDREN card, how cute.
(Score: 1) by Noldir on Friday April 04 2014, @12:42PM
Personally I think the problem is not so much the definition of marriage but the fact that marriage and equal rights under the law are conflated. I'd much rather see that you have a "legal marriage" and a "church marriage". We have that over here (Netherlands) where basically they both confer the same rights but one is something that gives you "married" status for all things pertaining to the state and one is done by your church of choice. This way everyone is treated equally under the law, but not everyone is treated equally by all religious institutions (I don't like it but I also don't have a problem with it).
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday April 04 2014, @04:14PM
Because I don't think an unwillingness to redefine the fundamental building block of society is oppressive?
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 5, Funny) by lubricus on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:42PM
It's intolerable that the tolerant don't tolerate the intolerant?
No. If the tolerant tolerated the intolerant, only the intolerant would be tolerated, and then only by the intolerables.
I can't tolerate that logic.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:04PM
While it's questionable if a CEO position is tenable, it must be okay for a CTO to fund an anti-gay marriage campaign? We know this because people didn't begin complaining until he became CEO.
I have some sympathy for Brendan, the guy is entitled to his views and would have made an effective CEO. I myself actively avoid buying products or services when I know the head of a company is funding a political cause to which I take offence. So I also have some sympathies with those complaining and the case here is complicated by the fact that Mozilla is run in the public interest.
On balance though; victim card playing, reverse-bullying is more offensive than Brendan personally funding an offensive political campaign. I know gay people who oppose gay-marriage; if Brendan were gay would they still claim he *could be* prejudiced against gay employees for funding the campaign? What nonsense!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:07PM
Whether he is for or against marriage itself shouldn't be an issue.
The fact he fought and paid for a system to propagate inequality should be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:17PM
Very good. Now either kindly explain how inequality is justified only for those who support / fund inequality or fuck off with your hypocritical double-think!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:36PM
What inequality is being done against Brendan?
He wasn't nor is he now missing any rights that anyone else has. The only inequality involved was the one he was supporting - that a subset of the population shouldn't have the same rights as he.
(Score: 1) by Pherenikos on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:41PM
If we believe the Supreme Court, both of those are protected as free speech. Your argument is that if he believes in something its ok as long as he does nothing, the moment he makes his beliefs known it becomes wrong. What is next, should we restrict voting as well?
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday April 04 2014, @12:24AM
Actually, it's when he becomes the head of a company whose mission statement is to be free and open. As CEO he was in a position to directly influence the corporate policies regarding benefits for those who he believes should not have the same rights as he has or that others do (as demonstrated though his actions).
Does this mean he shouldn't be CEO? Probably not, considering he stated publicly that Mozilla would maintain its current benefits structure, which included full benefits for everyone. Should he have to resign because his actions became public? That's up to Mozilla. Based on the public outcry against his actions of intolerance it was probably best to remove the distraction, though they probably should have responded much faster and with much stronger language to ensure that the personal actions of their CEO do not mean that their company would be sharing those beliefs or those actions. Had they, and Eich, handled this better it would not have turned into this mess.
And please, let's not confuse what "free speech" really means. The government can't oppress an individual's speech. The government doesn't have anything to say about the court of public opinion, where democracy is measured by volume, resonance and sustain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @03:22AM
So let's start the Political-Correctness cleansing.
Make a list of organizations that had ever lifted a finger to propagate inequality. Now REQUIRE every Mozilla staff to report every donation they have ever made.
If there is any match, you are OUT!
What's good for goose and all that, right? Mozilla is all for OPENNESS and FREEDOM, RIGHT?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @05:00AM
Sounds eerily similar to "It's ok to be gay as long as you don't act on those feelings" pot kettle black etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @02:41AM
Open Source was never about being politically correct. Why is it now?
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday April 04 2014, @07:24AM
It isn't. Some might think so and some certainly try to make it so but it isn't and Mozilla just pushed their junk in everyones face yet again (the trademark debacle, Google stuff, and FBI Tor thing are a few other examples from the recent past that rightly or wrongly stick to them). Hopefully that's good for the competition including all the forks. If anything F/OSS along with IT in general has always been known for being much less politically correct than normal. Personally I'm more laid-back about it all than just about anyone I can think of anecdotally from life experience both off and on the net but I don't doubt some wouldn't believe that, well they would be in for more than a handful of shocks.
So this has nothing to do with open source or free/libre source and everything (no matter how loony it sounds) to do with the slow suicide of western civilization. Every lesson learnt since during the enlightenment is actively being dismantled. When people can't navigate simple stuff like this without biting their own ass while thinking they biting "the enemy" they not only have no chance against the larger more serious challenges like the whole NSA disaster but would also be active participants in making all of those challenges even harder if possible.
tl;dr: It isn't, these are the kind of people who trade with Feinstein & co and think they come out on top after sucking her off. Obscene? Of course it is.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Informative) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:36PM
The discriminator being discriminated. An eye for an eye. We made it sooo far, eh.
What's next, forcing him to write moderately complex javascript apps that work in any browser?
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:21PM
They simply pointed out that he was not fit for the job. He could never promote the values of Mozilla in a believable way.
The discriminating factor here was his (in)competence.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday April 04 2014, @01:56PM
Fit for the job, is a good point. Unfit to the point to be removed, is a good point.
But, "the values of Mozilla" are here [mozilla.org], I'd like to know where he fucked up exactly.
(Score: 2) by cwix on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:46PM
He has the right to express his views. That does not mean he has the right to be free from criticisms of those views.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mattie_p on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:41PM
He should have taken a word from these guys [polygon.com] regarding his support for Prop 8.
If you won't read the link: Satan is against him, which is why he had to resign.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by starcraftsicko on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:53PM
The link below gives some background that TFA and the summary lacks.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brendan-e ich-resigns-mozilla-ceo-anti-gay-flap-article-1.17 44765 [nydailynews.com]
So basically, we (?) are beating up a guy for making a $1000 donation to a political / ballot initiative (that passed...). Particularly in light of recent news, this seems like an over-reaction.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/politics/scotus-poli tical-donor-limits/ [cnn.com]
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1) by dbe on Thursday April 03 2014, @08:58PM
Explain me how these witches hunting (whether you agree or not on his position) campaign will not result in people finding a family member to do the donation or some other more deviant way?
-dbe
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:23PM
a bigot was identified and publicly named/shamed.
the more we do that, the less bigots we'll have in our world.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by julian67 on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:43PM
Mistress Goody Eich was identified as a wrong thinker and evil doer and publicy shamed and burned.
The more we do that, the less witches we'll have in our world.
Yours in love,
The self-appointed guardians of morality and the public good,
Salem, MA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @02:09AM
Idiot. No Salem witches were burned (they were hanged you moron), and Eich is a self-hating latent homosexual douchebag bigot, not a witch.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday April 04 2014, @09:10PM
damned RIGHT he's a wrong-thinker.
its still 'ok' in some peoples' books to discriminate against gays. would those same people think its ok to discriminate against other minority groups? blacks, jews, mexicans, catholics, blind, deaf, etc?
NO!
this piece of shit needs to get with the modern program and stop trying to force his views on everyone else. if he does not want to marry a gay guy (lol) that's fine. no one is forcing him to do things he does not want. but by the same token, he does not have the right to tell others how they can live their lives. his control only extends to his own sphere around him. that's what he can choose and that's his right. his right does not extend to telling other minorities how they should live their lives.
this is not moral relativism (its not a 'strawberry vs vanilla' choice) this truly is a right vs wrong thing and anyone who is not filled with religion and hate can see this.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:01PM
less Javascript. I'd like to see the browser return to being an information viewing tool, and stop degenerating into a geolocating, mouse-dwell-time-transmitting tool for the forces of evil.
As a creator of Javascript, I suspect Eich would have furthered the progression to that kind of a browser.
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:59PM
He created Javascript? Why didn't they say so?!
Burn the witch! Off with his head! Both even, and then jump up and down on the pieces! And just you wait and see what I propose for whoever invented flash!
(Score: 1) by youngatheart on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:01PM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03 2014, @10:02PM
The totalitairian pigs have won. Down the road they will pay. The entire world, save the degenerates in the US and Europe, is revulsed by these perverts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @02:23AM
I will not be supporting Mozilla any longer.
Also, I will no longer support any organization that mandates that I or my leaders be politically correct.
I hope others in the community will join with me, and repeat the mantra:
"My C0DE is not politically c0rrect".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @02:52AM
Open Source has been my life for the past decade.
In all that time, it has always been about the code, and about supporting the best code, regardless of where it comes from, no strings attached--that's diversity and tolerance. I really don't understand why that message no longer applies when it comes to an individual like Brendan.
I feel like Mozilla has sold me out in order to appease a small number of opinionated zealots.
I don't feel like I'm working on open source development any more. I feel like all my contributions will be run through some kind of Shuttleworth proprietary filter.
Mozilla seems to have lost its way, like Gnome.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by paddym on Friday April 04 2014, @02:55AM
What I saw is a demonstration of free speech. In 2006, Eich exercised his free speech in support of prop 8. In 2014 the folks at OkCupid pointed out that it felt having such a person as CEO of a supposedly inclusive organization was a poor choice. Also, in 2014, Eich felt that resigning, rather than compromising his own strong point of view was in his and Mozilla's best interest. Plenty of controversial CEOs have kept their post in the past. Who was bullied?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @10:17AM
The law of headlines was bullied into submission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @04:35AM
Comments are closed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Common Joe on Friday April 04 2014, @05:05AM
I'm surprised no one has stated something obvious: this has been in the making for a long time by just about every corporation out there. They are reaping what they have sowed. I'm looking for a job and I know corporations are going online and checking my LinkedIn and Facebook and everything else they can get their grubby little hands on to decide if my personal life is a good fit for corporate culture.
I'm a writer and it pisses me off that I need three online personalities: my professional life (with my real name and no opinions), my online life (like here on Soylent News where I can express my opinions), and my writing life with my nom de plume. If I couldn't separate the three, I'd have give up expressing opinions on Soylent News and never publish what I write.
This scenario wasn't entirely created by the companies (as our intolerance as a society has been around since forever), but something did change. Minorities have always had these problems. Now that companies have forced this kind of nonsense on the broad population, the CEOs are getting a first hand look at what they've been doing.
Expect some kind of interesting maneuver in the next five to ten years to protect companies and their boards and CxOs from these kinds of issues while the rest of us continue to be squashed. I can take a guess as to what it will be, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader for now.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by dpp on Friday April 04 2014, @06:18AM
First off - I'm a major proponent of freedom of speech. The whole "disagree but will fight for your right."
However, as others have discussed, much more eloquently, it's important to remember that freedom of speech cuts both ways. The people who called for Eich's resignation, an apology, an explanation, etc. were exercising their freedom as well, just as he was in spending his money on the Prop8 campaign.
I also feel that people in positions of power, in the public eye, such as politicians, entertainment industry, or large/well known corporations are all also going to be scrutinized and perhaps penalized for their spoken opinions. As SCOTUS explained - money is speech. Eich "spoke". What he said was, he didn't think that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as as heterosexuals. Prop8 was denying gay the right to marry.
- An Ex-pat's personal story
So on to a personal story about the effects of Prop8/marriage-inequality. When I fell in love in the late 1990s with the person I went on to marry, still happily 15yrs+ yrs later, we lived in different countries. I lived in the US, CA specifically, where years later Prop8 came about.
Due to CA and the US Federal government not recognizing our marriage (our Union before family in friends was in early 2000), I couldn't claim my spouse for the sake of immigration (along with some other 1138 Fed benefits). My spouse and I are both Sr IT people, reasonable education and above-average income potential. My spouse left an outstanding job(career path) looking to start over in the US with me. I mention income, as it was my single income, large enough fortunately, allowed us to stay together while we struggled for ~8yrs trying to achieve residency for my spouse based on work-visa. We had multiple IT companies in CA willing to sponsor my spouse, however the US gov rejected the applications based on some vague "failed labor market" review.
From an immigration standpoint - here you had a young (we both were back then), high-level college educated, non-criminal background, English-speaking, person from a country the US had no "immigration problems" with (Australia).... denied residency. Let's keep in mind...a "mail order bride" arrangement, possessing good old government-endorsed-opposing-genitals, would've been a done deal many years before.
- Effects of Prop8/inequality
So the harm... Well, we were effectively robbed of 8yrs of income, emotional/mental stress struggling with immigration, uncertainty about our future and planning. Finally after realizing things weren't going to change "soon enough" and we needed to get on with our lives, we were forced to immigrate to a country which recognized our marriage. As you might imagine, immigrating and leaving behind your family and friends, dream home we'd built together, and all the rest that's familiar and what you thought was "your home" was very stressful. We moved in 2008, as CA was in the throes of Prop8. I actually felt like Prop8 was a fitting "see, you're not welcome here...gays need not apply." as we made our new home in Canada. Another country now benefits from our contributions to society, respectable citizenry, and our tax dollars.
Leaving aside state-level marriage recognition, historically gays have been denied ~1138 Federal benefits and protections, see - https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of -federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married -couples [hrc.org]. Most states in the US still don't recognize same-gender marriage, so even though the Federal gov now (mostly/getting there) recognizes same-gender marriage (only from states that do), so a lot of Federal rights are still denied.
So I can personally tell you that "equality matters". I was born a US citizen, yet was denied equal rights due to an immutable trait, sexual orientation. This lead to what was a major and dramatic upheaval in my and my family's lives. Others still face similar situations as I've gone through, as well as many other harms and rights still denied.
Countless numbers of people have been harmed by the inequality Eich supports.
I'm happy that public outrage over Eich's actions and speech ($=speech) lead to his resignation. Not because "a man lost his job due to free speech", but because a free speech message was sent about potential consequences for a public figure's actions/speech - that supporting inequality (denying equal rights) is wrong!
[apologies for a long & rambling post...but as should be apparent, the topic of marriage equality has been very important to me]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @02:09PM
Sexual orientation is not an "immutable" trait. You are clearly very intelligent; you must know this. Why lie to us, and more importantly, to yourself?
For the record, I have no interest in what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. I wish you and he and your new home country health, wealth, success, stability, and happiness.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Friday April 04 2014, @07:43PM
Dear Anonymous Coward,
So, you refute what I said stating sexual orientation is NOT an immutable trait, in a very inflammatory manor by calling me a "liar".
I realized from your vehement response, resulting to name calling, that you're most likely biased against gays. That's fine with me, I won't result to name calling.
At the same time, I realize you didn't comment on the other 95%(+?) of what I was speaking about - which is inequality is wrong and harms people....and therefore this situation was about an influence public figure speaking in favor of harming people.
But "ok"...I'll bite, let's divert the conversation from equality to "is it a choice".
- Immutable trait ...do you still weight that option every now & again? wake-up & ponder "choosing gay"? ]
So you've stately sexual orientation is definitively NOT an immutable trait, so clearly this is that case that you've called me a liar.
I'd like to start by asking you to present the preponderance scientific evidence (demonstrate consensus) the demonstrates sexual orientation is not an immutable trait, but as I assume from your response...is "a choice". (something akin to - which tie do I where to work this morning?)
- Anecdotal
I'll get this out of the way first (so it can be dismissed, yet considered?). Anecdotal evidence, my life experiences, through knowing homosexuals, reading and studying the topic of peoples experiences, nearly universally the experience is such that - "you never had a choice". Often (nearly always, historically due to peer/societal pressure) gays, my self included, "tried" to make the choice...to fit in... to be straight. It didn't/doesn't work. Many/most(all?) gays will tell you that they knew from a very young age...or near as young as a person of either orientation realizes their attraction. [ or do you, conversely, remember the time you debated between being attracted to the same-gender or not? since it's a "choice" for you
- Immutable - non-anecdotal
There have been countless scientific studies about sexual orientation, which have shown evidence that it's not "a choice". Of course correlation vs causation can be debated to various levels in many scientific studies (depending on how rigorous the study), but off-the-top/from memory, examples include: in times of very high societal stress (war time/upheaval) more women give birth to gay children, studies related to the size of the hypothalamus, (gay male) studies about possible hyper-masculinism, studies about identical twins separated a birth raised in different locations/cultures/families both turning out to be gay (independent of external factors) beyond the realm of random/accident, lineage (relatives, previous gen) of gays, and many more.
Of course, it's not as simple as "they found the gay gene", perhaps it's not only genetic (again, example of studies of woman's hormone/chemical in womb levels in times of constant stress through pregnancy). There's probably more than one "cause".
You can also look at the studies on the "success" (complete lack thereof) of "ex gay therapy" - hint... there isn't one! Ask any of the "ex gays" who are now back to sleeping with the same gender (or celibate, of the religious nuts married opposite sex & speaking out how they "fight the fight" every day again attraction - not so cured?).
I'll not bother going into even more supporting evidence, as I'm certain nothing will convince you otherwise.
See - you already explained you know for a fact orientation is not (again, I'll be waiting for your studies & preponderance of evidence it's a "choice").
However, if any intelligent and rationale person sets aside personal "opinions", religious beliefs, etc...and reads up on the scientific studies, as well as considers the over-whelming volume of "anecdotal evidence" that's consistent amongst actual gays, I believe you'll see there's a true preponderance of evidence that - being gay is not a choice. That it's not changeable. [Side note on "changeable": orientation is not changeable, of course I'm not saying that someone who has same-gender attraction can't have sex with opposite...see heterosexual porn example where often straight women do it.. or religious nutter-case where they "repress" coz "god told 'em"].
- "interest in what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom"
I'm glad to hear that. Of course, I'm not interested in your bedroom either. That's why I didn't bring *that* topic up.
The topic I discussed is why gays deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Let's leave what goes on in the bedrooms to those in said bedrooms...personally, I don't dwell on others bedroom activities as I believe many others on the opposing side of this argument do (often, they "doth protest too much, methinks").
- "For the record" ...well, he's also a male. I suppose your "equality" argument, is - "that's ok, we discrimminate against lesbians just the same!". ... because 2 "powerful" (in society) we sort of equally giving up a share of power to be in the relationship vs typically opposite sex where one was submissive.
Thank you for the well wishes for myself and my spouse. You mention "he" and I don't recall defining us as a male couple (being lazy and not re-reading my entire post), but you're correct. I normally intentionally leave gender out of discussions on rights/law as I believe that the law should be blind to gender - make no laws particular to a gender. See, another way of looking at this is I'm male and I'm being denied marriage to a man because
- Gender/sex
Another odd gender note is I typically find homophobia is directed towards men. Around the world there are many places where it's illegal (jail!) for being a gay male, but perfectly fine to be a lesbian. Similarly, in say more Western culture, the idea of 2x men having sexual relations is repugnant, whereas (as I understand it) heterosexual porn nearly demands some "lesbian action". I do wonder if some if this would even go back to patriarchal traditions. In some ancient cultures, Greeks I believe (hehe...insert some Greek-ass joke), the woman was still pretty much "property". The man had all the power, the woman would "consent". So where they coupling/partnering/marrying it was actually consider a much "higher level" of love/devotion for 2x men to join together
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @12:08PM
Immutable does not mean making a choice. Immutable means unchangeable. To say that sexual orientation is "immutable" is to say that sexual tastes and proclivities are unchangeable. This is simply not true.
We all know plenty of girls who have kissed another girl, sometimes they even like it as I understand.
I'm single. Marriage laws in general discriminate against the single, in all the same ways they discriminate against gays. Why shouldn't my platonic best girl friend and I be able to pair up and enjoy these benefits? Why should we have to take park in religious ceremony dressed up in legal ceremony to have hospital visitation rights, and property transfer and tax rights, and all that? Or how about me and my brother?
Marriage laws also screw over men in heterosexual marriages. I used to be in favor of civil unions for everyone, and marriage to the churches. Now I'm in favor of getting government out of the whole mess as much as possible.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Saturday April 05 2014, @09:20PM
- Religious ceremony?
The religious note is an interesting one. However, I don't think anyone wants to force non-religious into religious ceremonies.
Many people are married outside of a church. I my a minister's license but also went through the US Coastguard's certification training for my "Captain's" license - as a Captain I can "marry people" - not church involved/religion involved.
- Freedom of religion
The flip side of the "religious freedom" argument against same-gender marriage is that since the US does specially recognize some church's weddings, the US government is actually discriminating against church's the want to marry same gender-couples (my church does, the other church before that did) - the US government has preferred one church over another.
- Marriage, 2 consenting adults (in love)
"Marriage" has been discussed in many court cases as a fundamental right for people - the joining (theoretically for life) one 2 people's lives, sharing finances, possibly raising children, taking responsibility for one another, protections such as not being forced to testify against one another in, guaranteed hospital visitations. You'll also note that it's almost always commented that this permanent "coupling" comes about from 2 people being "in love"....that those relationship are protected.
In principal I don't feel strongly against any 2 adults marrying. Underneath it translates to the government recognizing a civil contract which provides - rights, responsibilities and protections.
- Marry relatives?
The genetic reasons have been historically why brothers/sisters/close relatives were prevented from marrying (why do you think Princess Diana was brought in from outside "the circle"?). So...they used to allow (heck, in royalty it was promoted) close relatives marry, but that went by the wayside.
If you want to fight for consenting adults who are related to marry, I'm not gonna oppose that. I don't imagine there are going to be a tremendous number of brothers and sisters marrying, and while I find that a bit weird/possibly repugnant (have you seen the Game of Thrones?), I think preventing say 1st cousins is probably morally wrong (I know some 1st cousins who are married) risks to genetic defects aside.
- Fighting to get rid of marriage
Ok... so you've completely changed the discussion from - people being forbidden to marry due to their gender (being the same) to "let's get rid of marriage". Fine, I'm up for discussing/debating that. Let's keep in mind it's a totally different topic.
I find it funny that so many people have raised the pitchforks to fight for "get rid of marriage" or "gov only does civil unions -leave marriage to churches!"... ONLY AFTER same-gender marriage came up. I therefore suspect most people making these calls and crying for these changes are due to their not wanting same-gender couples marry. That's quite disingenuous.
I never said I was against "getting rid of marriage". If/when that gains political momentum and seems a possibility, I'll think about it more and weight the pros/cons before making a decision.
I haven't spoken out against getting rid of civil marriage, nor gov recognition of religious marriage (again, I see the gov as discriminating against churches that do want to marry opposite-gender couples - are you against that religious discrimination?).
In the meantime, let's not try to "keep people out out of the club" (usually based on their personal prejudice against gays) based on their gender - laws must be blind to gender.
- Immutable ...and switch back to being straight once they're "done"?
I didn't say immutable means making a choice.
I said orientation is an immutable choice, and went on to give examples of it not being changeable (religious nutters who go back to having same with opposite sex whilst not having an attraction for them, and "fighting"/repressing their real attraction for same-gender) - I see you ignored that.
My reason for discussing "choice" was that people like you argue that orientation is not immutable - again ignoring the evidence and scientific studies that you're wrong. Then you switch from scientific studies, and tremendous amount of anecdotal (gays experiences related to being "unable to change" when society to them to), to - "see I know a girl who kissed a girl...& she likes guys now". Please. I gave the example of the popularity of heterosexual porn having a high occurrence of "lesbian action". So in your world all of those girls are "lesbian" at that moment
Sexual ACTS do not equate to orientation or attraction. Heck, there are lots of gays married to opposite gender because "that's what they were supposed to do"...some who "come out" later in life, some of just bury it forever.
Just out of curiosity, how often to you debate "choosing gay" - every morning/night? Once in a while? Infrequently?
sheesh....
SO - since we HAVE gov recognized marriage NOW - let's not exclude based on gender/sexual organs. It's MORE fairness and better NOW, right? ...when we have more fairness immediately, which is causing harm, over time... you can work at changing things and just get rid of marriage. ... and if that momentum towards equality for gays was halted, reversed, and gay were continued to be denied rights indefinitely, would you ...like so many others...kind'a go quiet on the battlefront for over-turning any form of government recognized marriage? ]
Then
[ Or...as I suspect, you really don't want gays marrying
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06 2014, @06:54AM
You misused the word immutable. It is not immutable. Sexual orientation, at least in a statistically significant portion of the population, is very much fluid. This is self-evident.
It amazes me that so many of the same people who will claim that gender itself is fluid, will turn around and claim that "sexual orientation" is not.
You are also being deliberately obtuse. Marriage is religious ceremony, whether you like it or not. Been that way for thousands of years now. To claim otherwise is like Christians denying that they celebrate pagan holidays. It doesn't make it any less the case.
You also contradict yourself. You point out that the reason we forbid relatives marrying is to encourage genetic diversity, while claiming that marriage isn't about making babies it's about who you are "in love" with. But I love my sister and there is nothing gross about us having tax rights and visitation rights and all that good stuff. There isn't anything gross about us rooming together. There wouldn't even be anything gross about us adopting a child and raising him or her as aunt and uncle for instance. It would only be gross if I fucked her, and especially if I made babies with her...