Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
posted by NCommander on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the i-guess-they'll-unfriend-mozilla dept.
Sir Finkus and keplr writes:

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

The page states:

If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Tuesday April 01 2014, @01:16PM

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

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

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

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:01PM

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

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

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

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

    Argument for Traditional Definition of Marriage

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

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

    Now, someone please provide the counter-argument!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          And it's a fun discussion too, thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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