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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @02:09PM
Sexual orientation is not an "immutable" trait. You are clearly very intelligent; you must know this. Why lie to us, and more importantly, to yourself?
For the record, I have no interest in what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. I wish you and he and your new home country health, wealth, success, stability, and happiness.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Friday April 04 2014, @07:43PM
Dear Anonymous Coward,
So, you refute what I said stating sexual orientation is NOT an immutable trait, in a very inflammatory manor by calling me a "liar".
I realized from your vehement response, resulting to name calling, that you're most likely biased against gays. That's fine with me, I won't result to name calling.
At the same time, I realize you didn't comment on the other 95%(+?) of what I was speaking about - which is inequality is wrong and harms people....and therefore this situation was about an influence public figure speaking in favor of harming people.
But "ok"...I'll bite, let's divert the conversation from equality to "is it a choice".
- Immutable trait ...do you still weight that option every now & again? wake-up & ponder "choosing gay"? ]
So you've stately sexual orientation is definitively NOT an immutable trait, so clearly this is that case that you've called me a liar.
I'd like to start by asking you to present the preponderance scientific evidence (demonstrate consensus) the demonstrates sexual orientation is not an immutable trait, but as I assume from your response...is "a choice". (something akin to - which tie do I where to work this morning?)
- Anecdotal
I'll get this out of the way first (so it can be dismissed, yet considered?). Anecdotal evidence, my life experiences, through knowing homosexuals, reading and studying the topic of peoples experiences, nearly universally the experience is such that - "you never had a choice". Often (nearly always, historically due to peer/societal pressure) gays, my self included, "tried" to make the choice...to fit in... to be straight. It didn't/doesn't work. Many/most(all?) gays will tell you that they knew from a very young age...or near as young as a person of either orientation realizes their attraction. [ or do you, conversely, remember the time you debated between being attracted to the same-gender or not? since it's a "choice" for you
- Immutable - non-anecdotal
There have been countless scientific studies about sexual orientation, which have shown evidence that it's not "a choice". Of course correlation vs causation can be debated to various levels in many scientific studies (depending on how rigorous the study), but off-the-top/from memory, examples include: in times of very high societal stress (war time/upheaval) more women give birth to gay children, studies related to the size of the hypothalamus, (gay male) studies about possible hyper-masculinism, studies about identical twins separated a birth raised in different locations/cultures/families both turning out to be gay (independent of external factors) beyond the realm of random/accident, lineage (relatives, previous gen) of gays, and many more.
Of course, it's not as simple as "they found the gay gene", perhaps it's not only genetic (again, example of studies of woman's hormone/chemical in womb levels in times of constant stress through pregnancy). There's probably more than one "cause".
You can also look at the studies on the "success" (complete lack thereof) of "ex gay therapy" - hint... there isn't one! Ask any of the "ex gays" who are now back to sleeping with the same gender (or celibate, of the religious nuts married opposite sex & speaking out how they "fight the fight" every day again attraction - not so cured?).
I'll not bother going into even more supporting evidence, as I'm certain nothing will convince you otherwise.
See - you already explained you know for a fact orientation is not (again, I'll be waiting for your studies & preponderance of evidence it's a "choice").
However, if any intelligent and rationale person sets aside personal "opinions", religious beliefs, etc...and reads up on the scientific studies, as well as considers the over-whelming volume of "anecdotal evidence" that's consistent amongst actual gays, I believe you'll see there's a true preponderance of evidence that - being gay is not a choice. That it's not changeable. [Side note on "changeable": orientation is not changeable, of course I'm not saying that someone who has same-gender attraction can't have sex with opposite...see heterosexual porn example where often straight women do it.. or religious nutter-case where they "repress" coz "god told 'em"].
- "interest in what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom"
I'm glad to hear that. Of course, I'm not interested in your bedroom either. That's why I didn't bring *that* topic up.
The topic I discussed is why gays deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Let's leave what goes on in the bedrooms to those in said bedrooms...personally, I don't dwell on others bedroom activities as I believe many others on the opposing side of this argument do (often, they "doth protest too much, methinks").
- "For the record" ...well, he's also a male. I suppose your "equality" argument, is - "that's ok, we discrimminate against lesbians just the same!". ... because 2 "powerful" (in society) we sort of equally giving up a share of power to be in the relationship vs typically opposite sex where one was submissive.
Thank you for the well wishes for myself and my spouse. You mention "he" and I don't recall defining us as a male couple (being lazy and not re-reading my entire post), but you're correct. I normally intentionally leave gender out of discussions on rights/law as I believe that the law should be blind to gender - make no laws particular to a gender. See, another way of looking at this is I'm male and I'm being denied marriage to a man because
- Gender/sex
Another odd gender note is I typically find homophobia is directed towards men. Around the world there are many places where it's illegal (jail!) for being a gay male, but perfectly fine to be a lesbian. Similarly, in say more Western culture, the idea of 2x men having sexual relations is repugnant, whereas (as I understand it) heterosexual porn nearly demands some "lesbian action". I do wonder if some if this would even go back to patriarchal traditions. In some ancient cultures, Greeks I believe (hehe...insert some Greek-ass joke), the woman was still pretty much "property". The man had all the power, the woman would "consent". So where they coupling/partnering/marrying it was actually consider a much "higher level" of love/devotion for 2x men to join together
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05 2014, @12:08PM
Immutable does not mean making a choice. Immutable means unchangeable. To say that sexual orientation is "immutable" is to say that sexual tastes and proclivities are unchangeable. This is simply not true.
We all know plenty of girls who have kissed another girl, sometimes they even like it as I understand.
I'm single. Marriage laws in general discriminate against the single, in all the same ways they discriminate against gays. Why shouldn't my platonic best girl friend and I be able to pair up and enjoy these benefits? Why should we have to take park in religious ceremony dressed up in legal ceremony to have hospital visitation rights, and property transfer and tax rights, and all that? Or how about me and my brother?
Marriage laws also screw over men in heterosexual marriages. I used to be in favor of civil unions for everyone, and marriage to the churches. Now I'm in favor of getting government out of the whole mess as much as possible.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Saturday April 05 2014, @09:20PM
- Religious ceremony?
The religious note is an interesting one. However, I don't think anyone wants to force non-religious into religious ceremonies.
Many people are married outside of a church. I my a minister's license but also went through the US Coastguard's certification training for my "Captain's" license - as a Captain I can "marry people" - not church involved/religion involved.
- Freedom of religion
The flip side of the "religious freedom" argument against same-gender marriage is that since the US does specially recognize some church's weddings, the US government is actually discriminating against church's the want to marry same gender-couples (my church does, the other church before that did) - the US government has preferred one church over another.
- Marriage, 2 consenting adults (in love)
"Marriage" has been discussed in many court cases as a fundamental right for people - the joining (theoretically for life) one 2 people's lives, sharing finances, possibly raising children, taking responsibility for one another, protections such as not being forced to testify against one another in, guaranteed hospital visitations. You'll also note that it's almost always commented that this permanent "coupling" comes about from 2 people being "in love"....that those relationship are protected.
In principal I don't feel strongly against any 2 adults marrying. Underneath it translates to the government recognizing a civil contract which provides - rights, responsibilities and protections.
- Marry relatives?
The genetic reasons have been historically why brothers/sisters/close relatives were prevented from marrying (why do you think Princess Diana was brought in from outside "the circle"?). So...they used to allow (heck, in royalty it was promoted) close relatives marry, but that went by the wayside.
If you want to fight for consenting adults who are related to marry, I'm not gonna oppose that. I don't imagine there are going to be a tremendous number of brothers and sisters marrying, and while I find that a bit weird/possibly repugnant (have you seen the Game of Thrones?), I think preventing say 1st cousins is probably morally wrong (I know some 1st cousins who are married) risks to genetic defects aside.
- Fighting to get rid of marriage
Ok... so you've completely changed the discussion from - people being forbidden to marry due to their gender (being the same) to "let's get rid of marriage". Fine, I'm up for discussing/debating that. Let's keep in mind it's a totally different topic.
I find it funny that so many people have raised the pitchforks to fight for "get rid of marriage" or "gov only does civil unions -leave marriage to churches!"... ONLY AFTER same-gender marriage came up. I therefore suspect most people making these calls and crying for these changes are due to their not wanting same-gender couples marry. That's quite disingenuous.
I never said I was against "getting rid of marriage". If/when that gains political momentum and seems a possibility, I'll think about it more and weight the pros/cons before making a decision.
I haven't spoken out against getting rid of civil marriage, nor gov recognition of religious marriage (again, I see the gov as discriminating against churches that do want to marry opposite-gender couples - are you against that religious discrimination?).
In the meantime, let's not try to "keep people out out of the club" (usually based on their personal prejudice against gays) based on their gender - laws must be blind to gender.
- Immutable ...and switch back to being straight once they're "done"?
I didn't say immutable means making a choice.
I said orientation is an immutable choice, and went on to give examples of it not being changeable (religious nutters who go back to having same with opposite sex whilst not having an attraction for them, and "fighting"/repressing their real attraction for same-gender) - I see you ignored that.
My reason for discussing "choice" was that people like you argue that orientation is not immutable - again ignoring the evidence and scientific studies that you're wrong. Then you switch from scientific studies, and tremendous amount of anecdotal (gays experiences related to being "unable to change" when society to them to), to - "see I know a girl who kissed a girl...& she likes guys now". Please. I gave the example of the popularity of heterosexual porn having a high occurrence of "lesbian action". So in your world all of those girls are "lesbian" at that moment
Sexual ACTS do not equate to orientation or attraction. Heck, there are lots of gays married to opposite gender because "that's what they were supposed to do"...some who "come out" later in life, some of just bury it forever.
Just out of curiosity, how often to you debate "choosing gay" - every morning/night? Once in a while? Infrequently?
sheesh....
SO - since we HAVE gov recognized marriage NOW - let's not exclude based on gender/sexual organs. It's MORE fairness and better NOW, right? ...when we have more fairness immediately, which is causing harm, over time... you can work at changing things and just get rid of marriage. ... and if that momentum towards equality for gays was halted, reversed, and gay were continued to be denied rights indefinitely, would you ...like so many others...kind'a go quiet on the battlefront for over-turning any form of government recognized marriage? ]
Then
[ Or...as I suspect, you really don't want gays marrying
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06 2014, @06:54AM
You misused the word immutable. It is not immutable. Sexual orientation, at least in a statistically significant portion of the population, is very much fluid. This is self-evident.
It amazes me that so many of the same people who will claim that gender itself is fluid, will turn around and claim that "sexual orientation" is not.
You are also being deliberately obtuse. Marriage is religious ceremony, whether you like it or not. Been that way for thousands of years now. To claim otherwise is like Christians denying that they celebrate pagan holidays. It doesn't make it any less the case.
You also contradict yourself. You point out that the reason we forbid relatives marrying is to encourage genetic diversity, while claiming that marriage isn't about making babies it's about who you are "in love" with. But I love my sister and there is nothing gross about us having tax rights and visitation rights and all that good stuff. There isn't anything gross about us rooming together. There wouldn't even be anything gross about us adopting a child and raising him or her as aunt and uncle for instance. It would only be gross if I fucked her, and especially if I made babies with her...