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 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?