Religion isn't normally the business of a website. But you've expressed an interest in dating someone whose religion denies equal rights to gay people. Sure, this person may seem OK, and may even have their own opinions, but the leaders of their religion spread hatred, and it pains us to send even a single quantum of relationship happiness towards people who still affiliate with that religion.
If you still want to date them, you can click the link below, but wouldn't you really rather date the following matches, who we've determined from their public and private questionnaire answers better reflect OKCupid's approved religious and political values?
Seriously, I would have expected a dating website to have a deeper respect for the often-arbitrary reasons individual beliefs deviate from the norms of their family, employer, or community.
A good question to ask: If you think we will evolve to the point where gay rights are a given, what should we do right now? Should we be respectful for these often-arbitrary beliefs or should we try to make people/companies with these beliefs uncomfortable (but in kind/respectful way)? Honest question.
Mozilla is clearly a very inclusive project and a pro-LGBT workplace, which also does a ton of good on other issues. So what's "kind/respectful" about boycotting all of Mozilla, because of a one-time outside-the-workplace political donation by one manager?
The boycott tactic says: "bend to our preferences or we'll shun/nullify/punish you totally, not just in the zone of disagreement". That's the same kind of zero-tolerance orthodoxy-enforcement that drives censorship or war-making. Look at the "enemies" language OKCupid uses!
I prefer instead the logic of coexistence, and cooperation on common interests, even during the deepest of disagreements. That's important, because in our reasonably-wealthy, mostly-free society, every remaining political disagreement involves difficult issues of identity, rights, and morals.
I'm hypertolerant. I buy from, and do work for, and consume the rhetorical/cultural output of, people I vigorously disagree with all the time.
But also, I don't really buy anything "from a CEO". I don't even know the names (much less the religions or political sympathies) of most CEOs heading firms that supply my daily needs. This goes equally for local businesses: at a restaurant operated by a Catholic family, my 1st question will be, "what are the specials?", not, "have you publicly renounced the Pope's regressive stances on social issues?"
Many communities have already evolved to the point where gay rights are a given. In those places it's time to be gracious winners! As easy and fun as it may be to dig up the corpse of Proposition 8, and shoot it in the head again and again, there are plenty of live battles on similar issues elsewhere.
I'd prefer California (and our industry) be a positive example of how, after gay marriage is recognized and normalized to become "no big deal", everyone can still get along. Not an example of how retributive anger, and the appetite for economically-punishing losing dissenters, never ends.
You don't know Brendan, I don't know Brendan, nobody in previous threads comparing him to fucking racists or the Nazis knows Brendan. It's disgusting, please stop.
>Should we be respectful for these often-arbitrary beliefs or should we try to make people/companies with these beliefs uncomfortable (but in kind/respectful way)? Honest question.
You should take the moral high ground and send him a personal communication detailing how his donation has caused harm.
No one's asking you to respect his belief, though, but this is just majorly unfair to everyone else who has contributed to Mozilla.
I didn't compare him to nazis, skinheads, or other violent/hateful racists. You shouldn't equate racism with hate.
In short, I think it's a fair comparison. Right now, I don't think he's a hateful person though more information could change my mind.
Though you could step beyond my/the parent comment's literal words to get to the gist of the point: While they deserve some sensitivity because they are a product of their religion/upbringing/culture, they don't get a free pass (google "moral relativism" if you want to see a mess of discussions about this).
I know Brendan. I met him on a number of occasions while working at Mozilla and interacted with him on many more. I think the comparison to racism is completely valid. I don't think he's a bad guy (he was always quite cordial with me) but his actions caused harm to a large number of people; I don't think that's okay.
It's a stupid fucking belief, and it leads to seperate but equal bullshit, but it's not homophobic on its own.
There are civil unions, and there are marriages - and if it was simply about "rights" and "benefits", then people wouldn't give a c*ap which group they were in.
However, even though they have civil unions (in many countries/states), they also want to redefined marriage.
I'm not saying that's wrong or right - that's an argument I won't go into here.
However, to try to pretend that this is anything but redefining something is pretty deceptive.
Maybe they'll win, and we will redefine marriage. Who knows.
I'm just trying to explain what his (assumed) beliefs are, and pointing out that his donation and beliefs shouldn't automatically label him as "anti-gay."
If a religion said black people were cursed and had no souls, there wouldn't be so much hemming and hawing over whether or not they were racist. (Articles about the Mormon church all mention its "racist past".)
 With a sliver of a possible out if you support ending all legal recognition of marriage.
Why I will never be converted to gay marriage
...the recent institution of civil partnerships seemed to be the final necessary reform, giving homosexuals the right to inherit each other’s property, just as may a man and his wife; and if they want a family, there is now no barrier to their adopting children – in the case of homosexual men, so long in error bundled together with paedophiles and pederasts, an astonishing recognition of moral responsibility.
Why then do they and lesbians demand the right to marry? Indeed, how many of us have made that demand? One in 20? One in 10? Most of us... are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception.
Since the institution of civil partnerships there has been no impediment to their celebration with a party as extravagant as any wedding, but not all homosexuals are so exhibitionist. Most of us are content with what we now have within the law, and are happy to respect the deeply-held belief of sincere, thoughtful and informed Christians for whom marriage is the one sacrament in which we cannot share.
We have wasted our resources on the wrong campaign – the battle still to be won is against prejudice, the most insidious of enemies.
If you could look beyond that joke of a concept you can see it's really about EQUAL rights, not about samesies.
To some the concept of marriage means something, to others it's a way to get insurance or better tax deals. This debate is about equal rights. period.
As a side note, the only real argument i've heard against same sex marriage was it opens the doors to lawsuits, because if you have the same rights you can be sued you when you infringe them. And that's what the true opponents of equal rights fear.
pps the only thing about the quote that makes any sense is it is wasted resources, this should not even be a debate.
No, it is not. One can actually have empathy with gays and believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
I don't agree with those beliefs, but I'm speaking from experience that there are many people who believe that marriage has a very religious connotation.
Can you please cite a single interaction in which Brendan has looked down upon someone personally due to their sexual identity?
You can't just slap "but it's my religionnnnn" on something and call it a day. It's like you haven't bothered to read the rhetoric that right-wing politicians used in the segregated South or apartheid-era South Africa.
All we know is that he donated $1000 to reaffirm, in law, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Perhaps he believes that the state should remove all recognition of marriage and just recognize civil unions going forward for everyone with the benefits from marriage.
We don't know, because he hasn't talked about his beliefs. And honestly, I don't believe they're that important when Mozilla has reaffirmed their strive for equality.
Just a heads-up, this is a strawman developed by anti-same-sex-marriage proponents to provide a possible (though not plausible) reason other than denying people their rights why someone might oppose same-sex marriage (and you also have to buy that someone who wanted to grant same-sex couples those legal right would vote/donate/campaign/etc to deny them).
If you're going to assert it, you need to have specific evidence that the individual in question actually believes that.
Brendan is (or was at the time of donation) ignorant, there's no sense in disputing that. I'm just tired of people labelling him as anti-gay, bigot, homophobe, etc.
I know him. You're wrong. He's an unrepentant homophobic bigot.
Ideally laws would be reformed in such a way that the priviledges granted today are tied to something other than you are a man and woman and want to marry. It could be just you are two or more people who want to marry. In my opinion things especially tax benefits should be tied to the fact that you are actually providing a service (like raising kids, your own or adopted, but maybe just caring for each other financially is enough).
I think you might be overblowing the horn just slightly there.
Nobody is being oppressed.
In most progressive countries, civil unions are available, which confer exactly the same benefits and rights as a traditional marriage.
In fact, in many countries, you don't even need to do that - simply having a de-facto relationship will be enough.
So basically, it's about a word - in this case "marriage", which has traditionally been between a man and a woman, they want to redefine it to include any two humans.
I'm not saying that tradition is "right" just because we've done it that way for thousands of years - maybe it's "right" that words should change over time.
However, to try to claim the moral high ground by making disingenuous comparisons to Apartheid is pretty disgusting for all those that actually suffered through Apartheid.
What next? Comparisons to the pogrums?
 An aside: Do you know anything at all about apartheid? Did you actually protest against it? Do you you know about the deep links between the LGBT-rights movement and anti-apartheid movement, which was a factor that led to South Africa's being the only constitution in Africa, and one of the first in the world, to give formal equal rights to the LGBT community and subsequently legalize gay marriage?
It's not exactly like these interracial couples were offered a "union" which conferred the same rights, but don't call it a marriage.
But even if they were, it's still not close to the current battle over gay "marriage".
For most of recorded human history, the concept of marriage was very much tied to the idea of family.
For example, Susan Treggiari, a professor of Roman history writes "Matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her".
Homosexual relationships cannot by definition create a family - they are not a procreative relationship.
I'm not saying they're wrong because of this - this is simply a biological fact.
This is what a lot of gay marriage activists seem to miss - it's not opposition to the idea of them together. If they want to be together, they will be together.
It's simply that they wish to come along and redefine an existing word, to fit a new definition of what a family is.
Perhaps as a society, we will agree - and we will allow "marriage" between any two humans, and gender will become irrelevant.
However, to simply come along and assume, oh, a man and woman get it, so a man and man should get it automatically is either being intentionally blind, or very presumptuous.
A man and woman family is different to one composed of a man and a man - not because one is more valuable or not valuable - but simply because of their roles.
It's like saying, oh, a woman gets pregnant, so she must be more valuable than the man in a marriage. Well no, they are different - they play different parts, and we call them different things.
Yeah, there's a reason people think people who support straight marriage while opposing gay marriage are homophobic bigots.
(And probably anthropology thrown in there as well).
I don't get it, for people who claim to be super-rational, and only believing in "evidence", some of you atheists are a strangely illogical bunch.
And then when you say "Err...but wait, did you actually think this through - what about X?", they start throwing around labels like BIGOT, BIGOT!!!! NYAH NYAH!!!
Ok, I'll try and put in in HN tl'dr terms =).
Man + Woman = Procreation
That is a fact of life (literally, the fact of life) - human's engage in sexual reproduction.
For most of recorded human civilisation, we've had marriages - to try and foster the family unit, and engage in aforesaid procreation.
Now, in modern times, we've had an upsurge in homosexual relationships - some people decide to have sexual partnerships with same-gendered people.
Now, this can't by definition by procreative - which for most of recorded history was the point of marriage and families.
So some parts of society want them to come up with a new term to describe this relationship, which is sexual in nature, but not about families or procreation.
However, the other group say that because their relationships are sexual in nature, and they still like the concept of kids, they should still use the same label.
For some reason denying gays their equal rights is somehow ok as long as the person is not foaming at the mouth, and if they're refusing to be open-minded about their religious beliefs. I don't get it.
I oppose ALL state-sanctioned unions because I don't believe it's the state's business to say who can and cannot be in an official relationship (hetero, homo, or all the poly/group unions). As long as the people consent, why does the state need to approve?
Considering marriage is a non-binding contract (no fault divorce), the contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on (even prenups are overruled with alarming frequency).
From the state's perspective, what does approving marriage offer? It offers monitoring and control (and a religious position), but almost nothing else. Child guardianship is already a non-marital issue. Last will and testaments along with living wills (if enforced properly) deal with most legal issues pertaining to marriage. Minor modifications to tax law deals with the rest.
If someone wants to be married, they should go to their local church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever. If they want legal protection, have a will and they should sign the proper docs (even married persons should do this). If they want a binding contract, they should contact a lawyer and get one (just as they would with a prenup if they want something semi-binding).
I am not one of the fedora-tippers, and I have no problem with individual faith, but it's been my experience that organized religion (of any sort) tends to discourage critical thinking and encourage ignorance. A byproduct of this is prejudice which leads to the dark side.
I don't believe you can quite so easily separate religion from discrimination.
Of course maybe I'm misinterpreting you. If by "it is not the truth," you mean the religions that people use to justify their hate are not the truth, then I agree with you.
I think there is far to much 'walking on eggshells' these days in regards to rights being infringed.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a resolved philosophical debate, so the idea that it's ironic or wrong to be intolerant of intolerance is an unoriginal and misguided idea. Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I do know Brendan, since the time I interviewed with him at Netscape in the 90's, and I know people who work with him and know him much better than I do, who say he has a lot of insane hateful beliefs that he doesn't like to share with people (except by paying money to other people to fund making TV commercials demonizing gays, destroying existing gay married families, and preventing future ones until the Supreme Court stepped in, of course), and that he refuses to change or justify his unjust beliefs.
Mozilla has tried to recruit me on numerous occasions, and I've turned them down because of Brendan, sending them and Brendan my explanation of why, but I've never heard anything back from Brendan or Mozilla about it. And I'm not the only person who refuses to work with Mozilla because of Brendan, so he's already harmed the Mozilla project as well as the people he hates.
So I DID tell him how his donation has caused harm, both to me and my friends, and the Mozilla project, and he ignored it. Now what do you suggest?
There remains an huge elephant in the room, Brendan, which causes your message of inclusivity to fall flat.
"I'm sorry." "I was wrong." These are the words abusers never say; you want our forgiveness without actually promising to stop harming people, or explaining what was going through your head when you DID harm people before.
You're not sorry. You refuse to mention you were wrong, and apologize for the tangible harm you caused. You skirt around the well known fact that you donated money to destroy the existing and potential marriages of gay families. Everyone knows that. It's on the record.
Your verbal gymnastics to avoid addressing that fact overshadowed your message. Why didn't you mention that YOU PERSONALLY are the cause of people mistrusting Mozilla's commitment to equality, and explain WHAT you did and WHY you did it, as you have always refused to do.
If you learned anything, and changed your bigoted beliefs, then you should ADMIT to making a mistake, EXPLAIN why you made it, and APOLOGIZE for the harm you caused.
But no, you're still an abuser, because:
You refuse to admit you were wrong.
You refuse to explain what the fuck you were thinking when you donated money to support Proposition 8.
You refuse to explain why you intended and succeeded in destroying the existing and potential marriages of gay families.
You refuse to explain what you learned from being wrong, so other bigots like yourself can learn from your mistakes, and hopefully change their ways.
Brendan: You are a bigot, and an abuser. Not just because of your beliefs, which you have kept to yourself because they are so unjustifiable that you are ashamed to discuss them, but because of your ACTIONS, which tangibly contributed to the success of Proposition 8, thus destroying the existing gay marriages in California and preventing others. That was your intent, and that was the result of your actions, so you deserve credit for destroying those marriages, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
The Supreme Court finally ruled that Proposition 8 was wrong. Can you finally admit that YOU were wrong?
But I am sure you won't, because as a religious bigot, you think you're better than everyone else, and that you have a right to tell other people how to live their lives.
You've so much as proven that with your latest cowardly statement, a non-apology apology, which dances around the fact that you did what you did, that brought shame to the company that you direct, and blatantly avoids saying you're sorry and that you're wrong.
This is how your non-apology apology sounds:
If your anecdote is true and he actually is homophobic, I'll be even more hurt. But I still believe that there's really no reason for Brendan, being the most qualified, to step down when he seems comitted to equality going forward. Regardless, what OkCupid is doing is unfair (especially considering factual inaccuracies in their message) to both Mozilla Co. and Mozilla Fnd. in addition to all of the contributors.
A lot of people disagree with you, because they believe financially supporting Proposition 8 is prima facia evidence of homophobia, just as donating money to the KKK is evidence of racism.
But you're performing logical backflips, and parroting implausible straw man arguments usually proffered by dyed in the wool homophobes to justify their hatred, without actually having any knowledge of Brendan's beliefs, in an attempt to counter arguments and testimonial from people who DO know him and HAVE been negatively affected by his beliefs.
That's why it's my belief that you're being an apologist for bigots. Your "maybe he's against all marriages" argument has been shot down -- don't try it again.
And they're wrong.
>without actually having any knowledge of Brendan's beliefs
I'm going on Mozilla employee's reactions, people who actually interact with him on a day to day basis. No one else seems to pin him as an "unrepentant homophobic bigot" (as per your other comment) except you.
>Your "maybe he's against all marriages" argument has been shot down -- don't try it again.
I'm in favor of redefining marriage and abolishing all civil unions because they're fundamentally unequal. And no, it hasn't, we simply don't know what his opinions are.
Your demeanor in comments really doesn't lend any credibility to your anecdote compared to the experiences shared by Mozilla Co. employees.
Do you mean someone like William Shockley, perhaps?
Also... for your question to be meaningful or relevant to the current discussion, I think you'd have to get more specific about what you mean by "unapologetic racist", and also weigh what other contributions they were bringing to the table as a CEO.
While Shockley had received a Nobel Prize in Physics and was an experienced researcher and teacher, his managing of the group created harsh working conditions.He chose a strategy for circuit design that failed and created an intolerable working atmosphere. The group of PhD graduates hired demanded that Shockley be replaced. When their demands were rebuffed, they realized they had to leave.
What am I missing here?
What you're missing is the nature of the job of CEO, especially in Silicon Valley. It's not a job where you bury your head down and get the work done, a huge part of the job is being the public face of the company.
The Mozilla Corp. has decided that their public face should be someone who is opposed to equal rights for gays. That's completely different than having a racist working as a programmer or in the mail room or even as CTO.
It's easy to do a boycott that doesn't hurt you. Everybody can live without Firefox.
So why not get serious about this and show people that you are willing to make an actual sacrifice as a stand against his position?
Maybe that would be inconvenient?
> So I'm downvoted to hell, but what about my question?
The question does not deserve an answer, but you are obviously not going to realize and will remain enraged, which would be counter-productive.
Firstly you are missing that there is choice about browsers; but no choice whatsoever in a scripting language in browsers. They are asking their users to make a choice, one that will not hurt their users. By removing all use of JS they would actively hurt their users.
Secondly you are missing that even as CEO of Mozilla he does not remain in control of JS, even if he created it.
If the language had something like logging levels which were labeled by derogatory terms for a subset of people that'd be another issue but it doesn't.
Imagine if Ted Bundy had created a cure for cancer. Would you want to boycott it? Would you put him in charge of people? Now admittedly Bundy might be a bigger danger to a specific subset of people than Eich but Eich is still a danger in some way to a subset of people.
Boycotting FireFox isn't about the product, it is about sending a message to the organization that puts him in a position of power over people.
(BTW, this is just one difference, one that I haven't seen anyone else pointing out, whilst other, just as good - if not better - differences have been identified in this very post)
Now the target is Firefox, the last big independent browser, even though it was _Mozilla Corporation_ (not the foundation) that made the wrong choice. Mozilla Corporation is IMO the place were pressure should be applied.
I realize now that this is probably what annoyed me most about how this affair developed. I am quite attached to Firefox and was rather surprised that it became a target in a scandal that revolves around a stupid move by Mozilla Corporation.
null == false // false
!null // true
He should be exiled for inventing JS.
I disagree with Eich, but I reserve my moral disapproval for those who seek to shame anyone holding an opinion different from that currently politically correct.
Nobody is stopping gay people from being together. Nor, in many countries/states, are they stopped from claiming the same benefits (e.g. via civil unions).
This is simply about them redefining marriage to encompass any two humans, rather than just a man and a woman.
I'm not going to go into whether that's "right" or not - that's way off topic here, and is only going to descent to a flame war - this isn't the forum for that.
However, this is about redefining a word - marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and to claim otherwise is blatant historical revisionism.
Tradition is not necessarily "right" though, so they're certainly within rights to claim they feel the word should be redefined.
Just like Eichs is within right to say no, marriage should be defined the same.
And Eichs was classy enough to keep it out of his work - by all reports, he's never discriminated against gay people, or had anything against them - he's simply got his own views of what "marriage" should mean.
"Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course."
All this over a word?! An etymology war... #not.
On a geographical front - the US is a different country to Uganda/Russia/India.
I was speaking on the topic at hand - which is about Brandon Eichs, a US citizen, supporting a US piece of legislation, and about Mozilla, a US organisation who he works for.
Perhaps it's slightly US-centric - but then this is a US-based site. If you want articles about other countries, you're free to submit them.
And secondly, on the religious front - Africa as a whole is not particularly homosexual friendly. I suspect part of this is cultural - they're just very conservative in how they view relationships/marriage.
This isn't about religion, but simply about their society as a whole.
For example, arranged marriages are still common, and they frown very strongly on things like adultery.
So to somehow try to link it to a Californian legislation about legalistic definitions of marriages versus civil unions is a big disingenuous.
Russia and India likewise are two countries that are quite conservative in their values.
It's the same in China -they're most definitely not a Christian society by any stretch (Christianity is basically a punishable offence), but they also don't like LBGT relationships.
The funny thing is - you don't see the same level of noise about this issue in Muslim countries.
I've always wondered why that is.
I would also point out that “politically correct” is about as dismissive a term as can be found today.
Cultural attitudes may shift, and at some point a marginalized concept dismissed as “politically correct” becomes simply “correct.”
In many countries/states, civil unions are the norm for gay people, and have been for some time.
However, the current debate from gay people seems to be that they want to re-use the "marriage" label, which has traditionally been for between a man and a woman.
I'm not saying it's right simply because it's tradition - but trying to argue that it has been anything but between a man and a woman for thousands of years is just historical revisionism.
So yes, you can try to argue that, we should redefine marriage to include between any two people who want it.
However, to claim that they're somehow being "oppressed" because we don't simply let them win their argument is just silly.
If this was really about them wanting benefits, then the civil union would achieve that.
Civil unions or legal gay marriages are still not possible in about 2/3 of the United States.
It's not "historical revisionism" for the definition of a word (in the eyes of the law) to change or evolve. For example, marriage used to be legal with women under 16-- now it's largely not. I'd say that most proponents care more about the rights than the label.
That's not Uganda style death penalty as some are equating it to.
There's no etymology war, you can keep the word "marriage", just give everyone equal rights to marry and have their marriage recognized everywhere.
It's a good point, unfortunately the problem with that is how far back we should we go?
Same sex marriage ( not just civil union ) did occur for example in the Roman Empire, until the Christian Emperors Constantius II and Constans passed a law prohibiting same sex marriage and making it punishable by death.
The examples were apparently satirical, and had no legal standing under Roman law.
The exceptions were a few Roman emperors who had...interesting....whims.
But hey, it's the emperor, who are you to tell him what's legal or illegal.
Fast forward a few thousand years, and the one other exception is history is one Spanish priest in 1061.
The idea of racial equality has been around a lot longer and is more generally accepted than gay marriage rights (which only recently have begun to gain wider acceptance) so I imagine more people would be on the “he should resign” side in such a case.
When I first heard about this issue I didn’t think it was a big deal as long as his personal views did not influence his professional behaviour and ethics. But as some people have pointed out, he is the public face of an organisation that touts openness and inclusiveness as values. Furthermore, if I was gay I’m sure I’d feel more strongly about this, in the same way that someone who is non-white (or in the marginalised race) would feel strongly if the issue was around race as I've described above.
Finally, to people calling for him to apologise….him coming out with an apology to pacify everyone wouldn’t mean that he has changed his mind. It could just mean him saying what he needs to say to be able to get on with things while still harbouring the same thoughts and ideas within. Ask any politician.
People will never be homogeneous in their beliefs, and I think that's a good thing. But when you're unable to interact with another person in any way at all because of their private beliefs, you're being an idiot.
A person's beliefs do not define their contribution to society. Life has a lot of shades of grey, everyone has opinions that run counter to the current societal ideal. It's not ok to shun or denounce that person, all you're doing is spreading hate. It IS ok to speak out about what you believe. Do some good. Instead of getting angry about someone you've read about on the internet, go volunteer somewhere. Spread some love instead.
If it were, say, 100 years ago, when racism was the norm, I probably wouldn't take the racial views of the CEO into account when deciding what to buy or where to work. When a small group shuns a business, it generally hurts the small group more than it hurts the business. Heck, it may even help the business if people who agree with the CEO start doing more business with the company in a show of support for his racist views.
If it were today, where racism is much much much less acceptable than it was 100 years ago, I'd consider it. The people shunning the business for racism would very likely outnumber those who might increase spending to support it.
When 95% of the population believes something, it is pretty silly to shun a business whose CEO believes that. When 5% believes something, then shunning might make more sense. The interesting question is where is the crossover point?
This is a long answer, so here's the TLDR: All sides of the debate need to tone down the name-calling, demonization, boycotts, and ostracism of opponents. Treat the other side of the debate like they're intelligent and well-meaning, but somehow picked up some misinformed, misguided, or mistaken assumptions and doesn't realize. Try to figure out how to change people's minds so they believe the right thing, instead of focusing on punishing people who believe the wrong thing.
I'm the rare HN'er on the opposite side of this cultural divide, so I thought my perspective would be informative. A lot of people who read the previous sentence have probably already characterized me as either a poorly educated hick or a slavering, sadistic bigot.
The truth is, that by dehumanizing your opponent and assuming bad faith, you guarantee that people who don't agree with you won't listen to what you have to say. This means you can't really change minds.
If you want to further the cause of gay rights, figure out the reasons people disagree with you, and try to convince them otherwise. Try to teach and explain; stay away from confrontation, condemnation and personal attacks. If someone else (on either side) becomes indignant, keep calm and encourage them to do likewise.
For example, in a little bit I'll give you a list of questions I've had about gay rights that no one's ever answered to my satisfaction. Based on past experience, I should give you a few warnings about my questions first.
You will probably think these questions are highly inflammatory, but I don't intend them to be trolling or snarking; rather they're things I'm honestly confused about. You should try to remain calm and think logically while reading my questions. This is apparently very hard for most pro-gay-rights people, for reasons I don't really understand.
Opponents of gay rights say these questions have no good answers. Instead of providing good answers, proponents of gay rights call anyone who asks these questions very bad names like "hateful," "offensive," "bigot," or "dinosaur," and don't actually answer the questions.
I don't know the answers to these questions because neither side ever actually answers them. The only thing I have to go on is the behavior of the two groups. Based on the above typical interaction of the two sides of the debate, I have to say the opponents of gay rights win: The pro-gay-rights side's only answer to skeptical questions is calling names. I'd probably change my mind if the pro-gay-rights side offered good answers and the anti-gay-rights side were the ones who weren't able to offer a coherent response.
Here are the questions:
What are the reasons you believe what you do? What is the evidence that homosexuality is an in-born quality as opposed to a choice? How strong is it? What about concerns that gay people are promiscuous, spreading AIDS and other STD's? Is a gay household an unhealthy environment for children? To what extent is homosexuality associated with crimes like rape and pedophilia? Why is homosexuality traditionally considered morally wrong (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible), a symbol of decline (e.g. the late Roman Empire), and even outlawed? If the millenia-old traditional viewpoint was wrong, why did it last so long? Were the anti-gay-rights people always wrong, or has technology changed the picture (e.g. maybe STD's are now less serious due to inventions like condoms and antibiotics)?
And one last question, which doesn't really change how I lean on the question of how I feel about gay rights: Why do so many pro-gay-rights people try to advance their agenda by calling names and boycotting organizations, instead of simply patiently explaining their side of the story?
What are the reasons you believe what you do? Interesting question. "What I believe" is a rather broad category, and it would take a long time to answer all of that. Let's see what the other answers provoke and come back to this one. --Well, I think I've usually included that in my answers.
What is the evidence that homosexuality is an in-born quality as opposed to a choice? How strong is it? There is my personal experience that I started being attracted to humans of one sex without consciously deciding to. I gather that this is a common experience for people of all sexual orientations, and I haven't heard of exceptions. There is also the logical consideration that if anyone was facing serious negative consequences for being gay and negligible benefits, and he could easily turn straight, then he would probably do it; I don't have the literature in my hands, but my impression is that if you look, say, a few decades in the past, you can find a fair number of gay people who (a) faced physical abuse and ostracism, (b) were very distressed by all this, (c) were not getting emotional support from the gay community because it didn't really exist yet, (d) could not plausibly be argued to have martyr complexes, and yet didn't "just stop being gay". Seems like strong evidence, though the underlying mechanism remains obscure.
That said, though, whether it's a choice is really moot in my opinion, and in fact something of a distraction. Orson Scott Card, a believing Mormon, wrote an entire essay where he starts from the premise that homosexual behavior is immoral, because his religion says so, and criticizes those who protest that the desire for it is innate: just because people have innate urges to do many other kinds of immoral behavior (including violence) doesn't make them moral. A fine argument if you agree with the premise, which his critics obviously do not. Since the entire point of contention is a matter of faith for him, it seems there is little to discuss with him, and the resulting debate is just awkward and embarrassing for all involved.
People have exclusive rights to their own bodies; they can form whatever voluntary sexual, emotional, financial, or other kinds of relationships, as far as I'm concerned; I would oppose anyone who would try to intervene by force, and would be wary of those who try to use shaming and other forms of social power to discourage it. Why people want what they want doesn't enter into this.
What about concerns that gay people are promiscuous, spreading AIDS and other STD's? I don't think promiscuity is a problem if you're careful not to spread disease; let us use the term "recklessly promiscuous". Let's see. I think the statistics on that are indeed discouraging. What could contribute to this? I've heard anal sex is like the most reliable way to transmit HIV; that could be a factor. Next, I've heard of gay bathhouses where men basically recklessly have sex with each other; what I've heard could be exaggerated, but I think they've probably existed to some extent; that would certainly explain a lot of early spread of AIDS among gay men.
Why would gay men in particular do such a thing? Well, perhaps part of it has to do with the average behavior of males; there are reasons to think they would evolve a strategy of promiscuous mating to maximize offspring, and I think young men have a reputation for being reckless. Then there is another effect: When something is made illegal but some people do it anyway, it gets pushed underground; necessarily it all happens outside the eyes of the law, and for all who participate the barrier to entry for other kinds of illegality is reduced. When drugs and prostitution are illegal, you get toxic impurities, dangerous back-alley negotiation, gang violence, pimps, and disease; when they are legal, you get careful manufacturing, department stores, and weekly STD tests. To the extent that gay prostitution and bathhouses are illegal (and I imagine social stigma can have some of the same effects as legal punishments), it is unsurprising that they lack high health standards.
Anyway, what about those concerns? The situation is unfortunate. The solution is libertarianism--legalizing prostitution--and to make people in general more prosperous, so they can satisfy their urges less recklessly.
Is a gay household an unhealthy environment for children? Inherently? I doubt it. The kids won't have parental role models for heterosexual adults of either sex. I'm not sure if that's a problem, though; homosexual role models might do fine, the one deficiency they seem likely to have (not having children) is by assumption out of the picture. Kids might find role models in the adults they meet or those they read about; it seems certainly not a worse problem than that faced by, say, single parents, or families with other problems. And note that it's entirely possible for a peaceful single-parent family to be better than a dysfunctional "traditional" family: there are a hundred ways families can be great or screwed up, and if "gay parents" is a factor, I would guess it's a small one, almost certainly smaller than "divorce".
To what extent is homosexuality associated with crimes like rape and pedophilia? I haven't heard anything about this. If there's a small link, my first guess is to attribute it to social deviancy: if you're already stigmatized and pushed into association with other stigmatized people, the barrier to entry for other kinds of deviant behavior, some of which may be criminal, is reduced. Then it's plausible that pedophiles attracted to kids of the same sex are more likely to be gay. If there is a significant link that has nothing to do with the above, I'd be somewhat interested to see it.
("Somewhat interested": if so, so what? Let's suppose childhood abuse of various sorts, the same kind that often causes people to become violent criminals, also often causes people to become gay, and therefore we observe a significant association. What then? Is the solution to outlaw gay behavior? [You bring this up in a "pro" vs "anti" gay rights debate, so I can only assume.] That seems mind-bogglingly stupid and counterproductive. Solution would obviously then be to try to reduce childhood abuse.)
Why is homosexuality traditionally considered morally wrong (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible), a symbol of decline (e.g. the late Roman Empire), and even outlawed? If the millenia-old traditional viewpoint was wrong, why did it last so long? I'm not so sure this "tradition" is universal. Observe the Greeks, particularly those of Socrates's time. From what I've heard, pederasty was considered great, and openly indulged in by many men who were considered great. I think they're not the only culture that was like this, although they probably are outnumbered by gay-hostile cultures.
The examples you cite appear to all come from Judaism and Christianity. Being a band of people who had to work hard to make their way, the Jews could easily see homosexual behavior (which cannot lead to children) as unproductive; the story of Onan is an injunction against refusing to father children when God willed it; an injunction against a non-reproductive lifestyle (ignoring adoption and reproduction-outside-marriage) seems not much of a stretch. So there's a possible religion-based reason. Next, I could make up reasons to do with masculinity: let's say a strong man is dominant, can only express sexuality through dominance, and it's impossible for both men in a relationship to be dominant over each other. Therefore in gay relationships, at least one man is weak, and is a safe target for bullying. (As a matter of fact, I've heard that in some cases of male-on-male rape, the "top" isn't considered gay, but the "bottom" is a gay sissy, despite the irony. The point, of course, is that the weak one is to be bullied.) The crowd gets habituated to bullying gays, and this can become enshrined in law.
As for being a symbol of decline: Well, if any behavior X is frowned upon and outlawed, and then society becomes chaotic and the law becomes weak to the point where people engage in X with impunity, then X can become a symbol of the decline, even if X is harmless or mildly beneficial. It might suggest these people have a good reason for frowning upon X, but I have examined that elsewhere.
Were the anti-gay-rights people always wrong, or has technology changed the picture (e.g. maybe STD's are now less serious due to inventions like condoms and antibiotics)? Or STD tests and general knowledge. Um... is it permissible to outlaw a behavior because many people are doing it recklessly and infecting others? How about outlawing infecting others? I guess it's usually too much to expect that kind of precision from the law. But AIDS is a very recent development; I haven't heard of homosexuality being associated with disease before the modern era. If it is, I'd refer to my previous comments on illegality, prostitution, and health standards.
Why do so many pro-gay-rights people try to advance their agenda by calling names and boycotting organizations, instead of simply patiently explaining their side of the story? I'd guess that they enjoy siccing the power of an angry mob on people, especially if they think they're justified in doing so. This may also be how they gain status in their social group.
Comparing this to the right of all humans to be treated like humans regardless of their skin color is downright outrageous.
Before you accuse me of something, I'm against any interference in the institution of marriage by states or churches. I'm also against tax/property/inheritance/pension/insurance privileges for married couples.
By giving some people less rights because of their skin color, you are treating them as sub-human. Somehow not deserving of the same human rights us Straight/White/Males are entitled to.
By giving some people less rights because of their gender, you are treating them as sub-human. Somehow not deserving of the same human rights us Straight/White/Males are entitled to.
By giving some people less rights because of their sexuality, you are treating them as sub-human. Somehow not deserving of the same human rights us Straight/White/Males are entitled to.
It's really all the same very basic case of denying some people the rights and freedoms that the majority of us take for granted.
There is no such thing as Straight/White/Male privilege. There is just Gay/Black/Female disadvantage. The rights I have, I take for granted - They are the norm. When certain segments of society are denied the exact same rights as I have, they are disadvantaged.
What I'm excited for is the day when being anti-soda is no longer socially acceptable. There's already a movement against it and slavery was once socially acceptable so it has to happen, right?
Holding a religious belief is one thing, and I'd be upset if OKC was discriminating against any group for holding a personal religious view. You cross a line when you try to outlaw something (that does not infringe on another's rights) based on personal or religious belief.
I don't care at all if Brendan Eich is or is not gay. I'd be saddened if he thought it was immoral, but grant him the right. What upsets me is that he's willing to donate money to organizations that, in my view, encourage discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, so long as those beliefs don't lead to actions that infringe on the rights of others. I believe Brendan Eich has crossed that line, and that OKC is to be praised for exercising their right to free speech in defense of equality.
The reason for this particular message is because it is part of a greater campaign to show Mozilla that users and producers on the internet are not in support of Eich's appointment.
Here's what Elton John had to say in 2008 (his views have since changed); from HuffPo :
"We have a civil partnership," he said, talking about he and longtime partner, David Furnish. "What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage," he said to USA Today at a gala for his Elton John AIDS Foundation in 2008. "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off."
Would you describe that as hateful?
- Civil Partnership was permitted in the UK from 2004.
At that time, it was felt by many gay community leaders that this was a great breakthrough and a legal equivalence to marriage represented equality for gay people in the eyes of the law. Until 2010, gay rights campaigners Stonewall UK declined to campaign for gay marriage.
Civil partnership was seen as a good way to introduce legal equality without wrangling with the church over the use of the word 'marriage'.
This seems to be what Elton John is saying: civil partnership is a great step, and legally what's needed without also dealing with the issue of the word "marriage" at the same time.
However, over time, the gay community made it clear that they felt that this equality-with-a-different-name is not real equality.
- Gay marriage has now been legal in the UK for the last three days.
Elton John was one of the first public names to announce his intention to marry, and the article linked is about his advocacy.
It's not really possible from this quote to say that Elton John was particularly against marriage, even if he didn't personally want to get married at that time. I respectfully suggest that it was the Huffington Post trying to create a story.
On the point about a person's beliefs changing over time, Brendan Eich is free to make a statement to clarify his reason for making a public donation and update us on his current beliefs, if he chooses. His previous statement on this issue expressed no sense of regret.
Rights are not about not upsetting people. If noone did anything that upset people, it would also be illegal to marry interracially. A lot of people alive today have a problem with that, and the government said: too fucking bad, kiddo.
"Why then do they and lesbians demand the right to marry? Indeed, how many of us have made that demand? One in 20? One in 10? Most of us... have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception.
As the procreation of children is hardly the remit of the homosexual and I have never encountered one (other than a priest) who sought a remedy against fornication, and the civil partnership caters for the mutual society and comfort, why one earth have we had all this ballyhoo about gay marriage?
We have wasted our resources on the wrong campaign – the battle still to be won is against prejudice, the most insidious of enemies."
I'm not sure if you're asking this question in seriousness, but... yes, gay people can be homophobic. A significant proportion of the population is gay, and every one is unique.
http://gayhomophobe.com/ focuses on anti-gay campaigners who have been caught in gay sex scandals. George Rekers is possibly the most familiar - dedicating his life to anti-gay campaigning while travelling with a personal rent boy.
The simplest polite thing to say about Brian Sewell (who you quote) is that he doesn't represent the wider gay community.
I'm completely theorizing as to why, but it's a topic I've discussed with many of them and thought about some on my own.
The following impressions apply to older gay men I've met who don't care much about gay marriage as an issue. I'm explicitly stating I don't believe they necessarily apply to a wider gay community.
I think part of it is that older gay men tend to have been in some longer, more committed relationships, and feel that the reality of day to day loving is what matters to them. Give them legal rights with civil unions and they're good to go. They don't need "marriage" to feel more committed.
I think too older men are more comfortable with themselves and who they are. They have been gay and out (at least to some close friends, if no one else) for long periods of time and don't feel as much shame or need to be "accepted" by everyone. So the symbolic meaning of gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) carries less weight for them.
And related, they've seen the truly big battles that were fought for the right to be out at all. This one feels smaller to them, less essential in comparison. They're happy with what they have. It's all they feel they need.
Church weddings are a different thing than gay marriage, though. My personal opinion is that anyone who wants one should have one. But at the same time, churches have to have the right to discriminate on memberships and services. I don't think they should refuse gay marriages, but if they choose to do so, that is in fact their right.
Church Of England is its own special beast, and probably shouldn't be allowed to refuse gay weddings. Messy topic, but that's what you get for mixing church and state.
In this case, I think the quote is incoherent. Of course the battle is against prejudice. But one of the most obvious expressions of that prejudice is the attempt to restrict access to the institution of marriage. Sewell is evidently willing to accept that there's some valid reason for that restriction. I think that's sad, and I think you've put your finger on the reason he feels that way.
It's quite possible that one might have found an octogenarian Alabaman black man in 60s saying the same sorts of things about the mixing of races.
There are exceptions here and there, such as helmet and seatbelt laws, but I'm really talking about lifestyle choices.
Seriously, what isn't a lifestyle choice? I don't get it...
If I prefer unpasturized milk, isn't that a lifestyle choice?
If I want to smoke pot, isn't that a lifestyle choice?
If I don't want to wear a seatbelt, isn't that a lifestyle choice?
Couldn't the statists just fuck off and let people make simple decisions like who they want to bump genetalia with, or what kind of milk to drink, or even gasp whether to wear a helmet or not?
The highly ironic thing is that in my jurisdiction we force people into marriage whether they like it or not automatically. That said we're forcing gay people to get married too so at least it's across the board imposition of non-consensual relationships.
> The qualifications for a common-law relationship, Dahl says, are much lower than they once were. To have a “marriage-like” relationship in BC, you do not have to share a bank account, call yourselves married, be sexually monogamous, file taxes together, or even cohabit all the time. To “hold yourself up to the community as a couple” and share a home is probably enough.
By that standard, it seems like it would be pretty easy for an ex-roommate to sue you for half of your wealth.
A thin majority of one state in fifty of one country isn't much of a norm to deviate from.
I don't support his views, but to call them as 'not a norm' mischaracterises them and doesn't particularly help in finding tactics against them.
I don't actually donate to Al Qaeda, and they're not equivalent to Eich, but the opinion expressed in your comment is applicable to both.
Edit 2: the Internet Exploder typo is theirs.
Here is the text (for those who don't use Firefox):
Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.
Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. 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.
If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.
However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:
[3 buttons:] Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera
I don't know much about Eich, but I don't think he was working to make same-sex relationships illegal (like Uganda or nigeria). it does okcupid no credit to infer that he does (using weasel words like "people like Mr eich".)
saying "eich wanted to prevent 8% of our customers from enjoying the fulfillment that marriage can bring to a relationship" would be much more honest.
edit: added legal before potential
That's the real question here. This issue isn't about hate and dehumanization -- I mean, there's way too much hate and dehumanization, certainly, but not enough to drive electoral victories we've seen. The question is just an extension of the social upheaval of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. The real remarkable thing is that it's been simmering for so long without coming to the forefront yet. Probably many people thought that it was substantially settled, on account of this quiet, but it looks more like the two camps just quietly went their separate ways.
This is also why religious groups outside of Westboro mostly talk about focusing on the family and the social problems associated with single-parent households and divorce. (If you are not a member of these groups or do not have friends and family who are members of these groups, you are probably unaware of what this advocacy looks like. See also: the entire public policy of the Catholic church on this matter.)
FYI: This is how you can have an eminently nice person with nothing but respect for the intrinsic human rights and dignity of homosexuals, but who still votes for Prop 8 or Amendment 1 or a similar measure.
And you know what? What goes on between two people in private of their bedroom is nobody's business. What benefits the government makes available to people, through spending the public purse or giving people tax breaks or mandating certain sorts of treatment... that kind of is peoples' business. It's a public-policy question, and structuring public policy one way or another impacts society in several ways - including, in some jurisdictions, making your ability to operate as a business contingent on you performing some services that you might not want to perform (cf. New Mexico photography etc etc).
(Postscript. No particular stance for or against Proposition 8, or for or against Amendment 1, or any other public policy recommendation, is hereby endorsed. The following ideas are hereby endorsed: Gay people are human beings and deserve a substantially identical set of human rights and dignity as any other human being is entitled to receive. People who treat them otherwise may be some sort or another of monster. The extent to which these rights overlap with public policy in the matter of issuing marriages is controversial. Voters who support Amendment 1 or Prop 8, electorally or fiscally, are not monsters for doing so. Pluralism is good and it would be great if we all had some way to get along. Maybe we can start with more understanding.)
(Post-postscript. Added adoption to the list of misc. benefits as it is of special relevance as a way for a married gay couple to raise children.)
I think this is where the problem crops up. Many of the people commenting here see things as strictly black-and-white. Opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, support for gay marriage is sunshine and roses.
The problem is that it's impossible to reason with anyone who takes such a stance, because many of the arguments raised here are suggestive that any form of opposition to gay marriage is illustrative of hatred and bigotry against gays. There is absolutely no middle ground. Which is rather ironic, because the other arguments raised accuse the opponents of gay marriage of doing precisely the same thing and accepting no middle ground!
In another thread last week, I recall a particular discussion that implicitly suggested that those who believe the state shouldn't recognize any form of marriage are closet bigots, so I'm not entirely sure what to take away from this. It seems to me that there's far too much emotional investment to enjoy rational discourse. I can certainly understand why such emotions are raging uncontrollably, but as someone who is neither married nor really believes the state should have involvement in marriage (or at least, it should strictly be up to the state to be aware of certain long term relationships under contract law--not what those relationships are), it's a bit beyond me as to why there's so much disgust. I don't feel so compelled to hate someone based on their beliefs, much less stop using a specific browser for reasons other than technical merits.
Side note: I admit that I had to do some digging around to figure out why OkCupid was urging users to stay away from Firefox since I visited the site with Chromium. I had completely forgotten about the tempest in a teapot that occurred when Eich was appointed to CEO. I can't help but think this is something that's intensely fascinating and of interest to a relatively small but vocal minority of people, although going by my small sample size of one is probably disingenuous. Still, there are more important issues IMO, and using/supporting an open and standards compliant browser (and open source) is of far greater importance to me than someone's political stance who now happens to be CEO.
It'd be humorous to suggest a conspiracy at work here: Information about Eich's donation was dug up and clandestinely released by someone paid for by Microsoft in effort to undermine Mozilla should he ever be appointed CEO!
He's on record as having made a fairly substantial donation to the Prop 8 campaign. That may not be "Fred Phelps" — let alone "Uganda" — levels of anti-marriage-equality, but it's close enough for my purposes.
"The "not as bad as" argument, or the fallacy of relative privation, is a form of the moral equivalence fallacy that takes note of the existence of things that are worse than what is actually under discussion - for different purposes, as outlined below. It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong; being fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other, usually worse, actions."
No one is making the argument that you are objecting to or using a worse situation to justify anything.
I said the situation in Uganda can't be considered "close" by any stretch of imagination to the situation in California until recently, before gay marriage was legalized. I also implied reaction should be proportionate to the degree of wrong. How the heck did you infer "opposing gay marriage is positive" from that?
You're a random person on the internet, I personally wouldn't rely on any implication to be clearly communicated. When in doubt, be explicit. This is even more important in threads (like these) where people run around with their heads on fire.
Not just flippantly saying "They can't get married, but they're still alive, right?"
Maybe thinking that it's ALL tragic is the best point of view in moving this world forward.
No, just marriage. His $1000 annulled existing gay marriages, and the situation didn't recover until 2013. You can't seriously expect that there won't be LOTS of people REALLY PISSED OFF ABOUT THAT. You can think they're wrong ... but those people are your prospective customers too.
They just wouldn't be recognized by the state. That is way different than what OKCupid is trying to say.
Well, Prop 8 specifically didn't try to do that, but that isn't unheard of in the US: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/indiana...
> They just wouldn't be recognized by the state.
Okcupid may have worded that badly, but the problem doesn't go away because it changed from "illegal" to "refusal to recognize/allow". It's still fundamentally terrible.
And yes, I recognize the difference between the two - I'm fully aware this country made interracial marriages like mine straight out illegal and not just unrecognized up until 50 years ago, and it's only been a week since I got married and I've already had to deal with thinly veiled racism.
There is an irony that an entity that declares it is for creating love is going around declaring enemies, and wishing them failure. This clearly undermines their own message, and shows them to be of a similar us vs them hateship. There are Sides to be taken, and you don't want to be on the wrong one.
What they should have said is "we are disappointed, and would like to see Eich publicly change his opinion and make some form of recompense; we would like Eich to join us in our view"... instead of "FUCK THAT GUY".
Remember the people that picketed Fred Phelps' funeral with the sign "Sorry for your loss"? That is how you fight hate, not with more hate.
That's not to defend okcupid's tactics in this case. I'm just saying that it's not really an example of hypocrisy.
That message doesn't work for me. I think you have to be logged in.
Well that kind of bellicose chest-thumping should certainly win people over to the cause.
I mean, as long as you've decided this is the sort of thing your business ought to be concerning itself with...
As clicking YES is too easy for bigots to get around, another version might require signing in to Facebook, Google or Twitter and upon clicking YES, posting a public message that you support marriage equality.
Obviously any website which does not take part in this campaign is not gay friendly and should be immediately boycotted.
The issue is with Mozilla placing him as their executive leader; the endorsement that makes and the message that sends to the technical community & the wider world.
People can have their own personal beliefs and as long as that doesn't effect the organization's open and inclusive policies.
Brendan was an employee of Mozilla when he made his Prop 8 contribution - that's fine, that's his right and as you point out people are entitled to their own personal beliefs.
The issue is who a company/foundation/organization decides to be it's leader and the values that leader will exert upon the company/foundation/organization and the products it produces.
To be clear, my beef isn't with Brendan Eich (although I'd disagree with him if I met him), it's with Mozilla for selecting him to become CEO.
You say that but the rest of the post makes it clear you don't believe that Mr Eich is entitled to his beliefs and that he shouldn't be employed [in this role] only because of those beliefs.
If he's entitled to hold those beliefs then he's entitle to be treated without prejudice for them, otherwise what do you mean by "entitled to"?
Hah, wider world. For most people, a browser is "the internet". They don't even care that it is made by a company. They certainly don't care about the CEO of this company who gave some money to some thing sometime in the past.
Almost none. US based tech sites are reporting on it. I saw an article in the Guardian and HufPo as well. That's it. It's definitely not taking the world by storm.
I don't think that is that uncommon, actually.
And if you take into account the whole wage-fixing cartel of Apple and co. you don't buy Apple products, you don't visit pages that display ads from Google etc. etc.
Do you mean it's not fair because it hurts these people, even though they haven't done anything objectionable?
But he is the CEO of the company, and what the company does going forward does depend on him a lot.
I think this is the key difference between boycotting the browser and boycotting the language.
If we're going back in time, you can get this via Flash.
One can hope ...
You're just giving people more of a reason to hate him.
But boycotting something that same person invented is.
I don't see the logic here. Really.
> Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples.
There's no evidence that Brendan Eich will bring any of his political views to the workplace; this continued backlash feels unwarranted.
Apologies don't work that way. The right apology is something like: "I try to be a good person, but sometimes I don't get it right. 5 years ago, I did something hurtful to many of you. I did it because of ... What I didn't realize then and do realize now is that ... Thank you for helping me, and to those of you who I made the world a worse place for in the past, I'm sorry, and I'll do what I can to make things better in the future."
I'm not convinced that Eich believes that he did the wrong thing in 2008 - that as far as I can tell, if he were to wind the clock back, the only reason he wouldn't write that check is the trouble that it's causing him now, and not because he's gained some understanding of things.
Silence, via shaming or suppression by a privileged status quo, perpetuates the prevailing stigmas and only serves to reinforce the very ignorance that birthed the attitudes.
While it might be uncomfortable for a privileged majority, we could all do well to at least be more open to dissenting opinions.
In this case, 8% of OKCupid’s “business” is directly related to the issue, so it seems precisely appropriate.
This is mostly faux outrage. Brendan is one man, an easy target to scream and shout at.
Notice how nobody is protesting outside mosques and embassies where under Islam, the penalty for simply being gay, let alone getting married, is DEATH.
I would warrant that a larger proportion of HN's audience feels some kind of connection with the technology world than they do with that of Islam, and it feels more reasonable to clear your own back yard out first before complaining about the state of your neighbour's.
As of 1999 in Iran, more than 4,000 lesbians and gays had been executed since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
As of 2009, homosexual relationships, acts or behavior are illegal in 36 Islamic countries. 10 impose the death penalty.
I'm not saying that Jewish and Christian religious texts don't also contain similar punishments, however, it's quite clear that anyone who believes in all the things the Qur'an says would have to believe that it's acceptable to put atheists and homosexuals to death for no other reason.
Similarly in most judeo-christian religions you see similar opposition to homosexuality being treated on an equal footing to heterosexuality, not to mention the rest of the sexual repression commonly found in those religions.
(If his personal beliefs do pollute his work then do as you will, run the guy out of town on a rail if you must)
Just a disclaimer: I fully support discrimination against bigots such as refusal of service.
I'm not even sure what I think about it, but I can't reject silverstorm's point out of hand.
Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell anyone they're not using them and why?
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
Gays who want to oppress anyone for not thinking like them are also being bigots by that definition. Marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout the history of humans. I think Gays should have legal equality. They can not usurp a word that has had such a clear meaning throughout the core existence of humankind.
I see this repeated often in these discussions, and it's a breathtakingly arrogant assertion. How the hell do you know? Have you spent years studying anthropology?
In fact, sexual mores have varied quite substantially throughout the thousands of years of human history and the hundreds of civilizations that have come and gone in that time. I think if you actually look into the matter, you'll discover this "fact" you keep repeating is anything but.
Retreating to dictionary definitions does not make a point, nor does asserting that prejudice by an oppressive class against an oppressed class is the same as the converse.
Well, yea, actually, it made it quite clearly, hence my post.
>> nor does asserting that prejudice by an oppressive class against an oppressed class is the same as the converse.
Oppression is oppression, elegance and articulation do not change that. Your attempt to say that my belief and understanding of the meaning if a single word describing a single legal institution is oppression underestimates what I was stating originally; that we who believe and understand the meaning of the word marriage are being oppressed by a very vocal, sometimes very vocally belligerent and socially irreverent group in context minimally and notwithstanding.
Are you being beaten to death for your sexual orientation? Are you having your fostered children of many years removed from your family? Are you being denied the right to be with your spouse in the hospital or on their deathbed?
You are in no sense "being oppressed". This is the way in which your "oppression" is not oppression, and one of many reasons why retreating to dictionary definitions of words is a cowardly, useless way to argue.
In the same sense, one might say that overthrowing a fascist dictator is more morally justified than overthrowing a peaceful democracy to install said dictatorship. Both are violence against a government, but they exist in different moral contexts.
Pretty much every law in the common law system, including the constitution, is a law that denies rights to subsets of the population.
The only question is whether you are in favor of such regulation. I'm personally not in favor of regulating homosexuality or marriage.
Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
(Or possibly don't - I personally think this entire stupid affair is being blown our of proportion. What the guy does in his own time is his own damn business. If and only if he somehow lets it bleed into his work, sure, you can do your whole outrage, let's boycott Firefox dance).
Look, the guy has a traditional view of marriage - the same view the human race had for thousands of years. Sure, some people want to redefine that, and they're well within rights to do that - nothing wrong with that.
However, this silly overbearing PC nonsense is getting old - we already get this faux outrage from the Moral Police every time the gender issue crops up.
Look, I get we want girls in tech - diversity helps, and it sucks they're not encouraged more to go into it.
Personally, I think this whole marriage thing is overblown. E.g.:
This isn't going to go away. At best he's going to be seen as the guy who doesn't support gay marriage in a world where this sort of view is becoming more and more untenable.
And last time I checked, when Prop8 went through, wasn't he with a majority of Californians...lol.
I don't get how the supporters of gay marriage something think (or try to claim) that their view is automatically right, arguments be damned.
Marriage has been defined as a man and woman for thousands of years.
Yes, that can be changed, and they're well within rights to do so - maybe the human race is changing.
But to claim that, we don't need to stinking arguments, and just say, we must be right seems a bit stupid.
Surely, if you're going to redefine something that important, you'd want to lead with your arguments, and not, oh, it's just natural we're right, and your position is untenable.
Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples, but his new CEO does not? I'm sorry, but it just does not compute.
If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time. e.g. Brendan donates $2k or $5k to a gay charity requiring a public record (as the Prop 8 donation did) three months ago, someone notices two months ago, he can then stay as gnomic as he likes. Something like that. But, y’know, literally nobody in the upper echelons of Mozilla thought of this.
That neither Eich or the board thought of this ahead of the time does, actually, suggest they're not up to the job. This is SIMPLE STUFF.
Evidence suggests that they've been spending months fighting a battle pertaining to picking an insider as CEO, which ultimately caused three members to resign from the Moz Co. board.
Which explains why they were so unprepared for anything else.
e: Bogus theory by Ars and WSJ, Mozilla issued a statement that the shake-up of board members was planned well in advance amongst themselves for various reasons.
Maybe they were occupied finding a man with the necessary technical and leading capabilities, plus the experience and whatever else I may have forgot?
Unless they all share the same opinions as Eich and they feel that being against gay marriage is like being against anchovies on your pizza. Then it would never have hit them that this was a serious problem.
Is HN [amongst others] calling for all people who disagree with legislation on homosexual relationships being called marriage to forfeit their rights to employment; or perhaps all those that consider homosexual sexual activity to be wrong? That seems like the logical conclusion here.
Is this going to be continued with all beliefs - ousting those that disprove of drunkennes or drug taking or polygamy or adultery?
Why should a company pry in to an employee's private beliefs and associations in the way you're suggesting?
You can without a doubt hire a murderer as your CEO. It will always be my opinion that you should at least think very hard about doing so before you make the final decision.
If you run for president and you're a satan worshipper, then it would be my opinion that you will lose. If you own a cookie company and want to hire a murderer as a CEO, it would simply be my opinion that you may lose sales. If you don't care about my opinion, or don't care about sales, and go ahead and hire a murderer as CEO, then that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, it's really up to you.
But if someone out there wants to organize a boycott because the CEO isn't a vegan, that's also fine.
"I'm envisioning the board standing around with glassy stares, 'I have no idea how this could have happened. We totally vetted his geek cred.'" - rone
To me, it's like watching someone kick a puppy and then considering him for CEO.
"hey, how about this guy? He kicked a puppy."
"Is there anything about him that we need to be aware of?"
"no, not that I know of."
Calls for boycott are happening AFTER it was released. I think it's the content (or lack thereof) of that letter that makes it ineffective.
> If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time. e.g. Brendan donates $2k or $5k to a gay charity requiring a public record
So now we prefer lying bigots to honest bigots? That reeks so much of hypocrisy, it is disgusting.