Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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

The page states:

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

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

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    --
    I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (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.