SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(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).