Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 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This discussion has been archived.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 wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:07PM

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

    Alright, to recap:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Tork on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:19PM

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

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

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

    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:26PM

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

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

      Arg.

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

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:33PM (#24454)
        Nah. Proposition 8, which is what the CEO of Mozilla donated $1,000 to campaign for, was about preemptively denying same sex marriages.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈