Support NeoGAF

[ElFly]

I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

The law itself does not discriminate between people (well, there are some laws that try to discriminate "positively", but that's another discussion); if you are gay or not, that's not the law's problem; if you want to marry two women and have a marriage of three (or more) people, that's not the law's problem, if you want to marry another member of your family, good for you, but that's not the law's problem.

If the law does not discriminate people, then it's not intolerant. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; that's prop 8, and it's not intolerant, because it's equal to all people on California, and that specific law does not give rights to some people or take it from others.

So if the law was "Black people and White people cannot marry each other" that would not be intolerant either?

Because according to your definition:

-it's equal to all people on california.
-it's not taking rights from some people or taking it from other.

 

[manueldelalas]

I respect your right to have such a stupid opinion.

The right to marriage is meaningless if you cannot choose the person you marry to.

Are you married? I am and I would be p pissed if the government had forbidden me from marrying my wife. I don't know why it'd be different for gay people?

Please explain why gay people should not marry the people they choose to.

I'm married, have 3 kids, thanks for asking.

It's the same reason why a polygamous person can't marry 2 or more women. Because the law defines marriage (well, prop 8 does) as the union of one man and one woman; but that doesn't discriminate gay people or other minorities, everyone has the same right.

I don't know why people here thinks that's intolerant; nobody cares if a gay man lives with another gay man on the same house, nobody forbids them to make a contract to see heritage stuff, etc.

 

[Servbot24]

I'm a firefox user and this kind of makes me upset.

I think I will be using dwb for a while...

I'm willing to bet that for 99% of purchases you have ever made, someone with a bigoted worldview had a hand in creating that item or service

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm married, have 3 kids, thanks for asking.

It's the same reason why a polygamous person can't marry 2 or more women. Because the law defines marriage (well, prop 8 does) as the union of one man and one woman; but that doesn't discriminate gay people or other minorities, everyone has the same right.

I don't know why people here thinks that's intolerant; nobody cares if a gay man lives with another gay man on the same house, nobody forbids them to make a contract to see heritage stuff, etc.

a.)Marriage has legal implications. Rights for when one member is hospitalized, certain parts of tax filing, etc

b.)Marriage is an important cultural and social institution that many gay people want to be a part of. They don't want to have to say "well we entered a civil union last year", they want to be able to say "well we got married last year"

 

[GSG Flash]

I'll be boycotting Mozilla if his personal views influence change(for the worse) within the culture of the company.

 

[RedShift]

I'm married, have 3 kids, thanks for asking.

It's the same reason why a polygamous person can't marry 2 or more women. Because the law defines marriage (well, prop 8 does) as the union of one man and one woman; but that doesn't discriminate gay people or other minorities, everyone has the same right.

I don't know why people here thinks that's intolerant; nobody cares if a gay man lives with another gay man on the same house, nobody forbids them to make a contract to see heritage stuff, etc.

Because there are like a million privileges only extended to married couples. Hospital visitation, tax benefits, inclusion in health insurance, not having to testify against each other, etc etc.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm willing to bet that for 99% of purchases you have ever made, someone with a bigoted worldview had a hand in creating that item or service

Yeah. but they were not CEO and did not publicly donate money to a cause that effects a group I belong too. People can choose their fights without being wrong. They can also be excused if they don't know something.

It is unreasonable to expect people to know everything, or ignore what they do know because of that ignorance about the rest.

 

[Mr. RHC]

I'll be boycotting Mozilla if his personal views influence change(for the worse) within the culture of the company.

Definitely.

 

[ElFly]

I'm married, have 3 kids, thanks for asking.

It's the same reason why a polygamous person can't marry 2 or more women. Because the law defines marriage (well, prop 8 does) as the union of one man and one woman; but that doesn't discriminate gay people or other minorities, everyone has the same right.

I don't know why people here thinks that's intolerant; nobody cares if a gay man lives with another gay man on the same house, nobody forbids them to make a contract to see heritage stuff, etc.

The problem is that such contracts will be overridden by the land's law on heritage and will have less standing than people inheriting from each other in marriage. There are tons of little details about how "a private contract between two gay people" is not the same as plain old marriage.

Polygamy is a complicated thing; some religions have it between their customs so maybe people should be able to marry more people?

You mentioned family; bigots always bring up incest. Incestuous marriage is normally forbidden because incestuous relationships are normally abusive in some way. Whether this extends to first cousins is debatable, but suffice to say that a man marrying his daughter would not result out of the free will of the daughter.

 

[CornBurrito]

I'm willing to bet that for 99% of purchases you have ever made, someone with a bigoted worldview had a hand in creating that item or service

And? The only valid reason to take your business elsewhere is because of dissatisfaction with the product or price?

I'm married, have 3 kids, thanks for asking.

It's the same reason why a polygamous person can't marry 2 or more women. Because the law defines marriage (well, prop 8 does) as the union of one man and one woman; but that doesn't discriminate gay people or other minorities, everyone has the same right.

I don't know why people here thinks that's intolerant; nobody cares if a gay man lives with another gay man on the same house, nobody forbids them to make a contract to see heritage stuff, etc.

I'd really like you to answer technomancer's question.

Would you be fine with a law that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman of the same race? That is equal based on your previous definition. A black man could marry a black woman. A white man a white woman. A black man could not marry a white woman, but neither could a white man marry a black woman.

 

[Pyramid head]

I don't think it's that difficult to understand.

The law itself does not discriminate between people (well, there are some laws that try to discriminate "positively", but that's another discussion); if you are gay or not, that's not the law's problem; if you want to marry two women and have a marriage of three (or more) people, that's not the law's problem, if you want to marry another member of your family, good for you, but that's not the law's problem.

If the law does not discriminate people, then it's not intolerant. "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; that's prop 8, and it's not intolerant, because it's equal to all people on California, and that specific law does not give rights to some people or take it from others.

I'm going to explain to you what a homosexual is.

A homosexual is somebody who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex, as opposed to the opposite sex.

It follows then, that they would only want to marry a person of the same sex.

People who supported proposition 8, did not want them to be allowed to despite the fact that it has no effect on them.

Why would somebody go out of their way to stop one complete stranger from marrying another complete stranger?

Why? Because they are i-n-t-o-l-e-r-a-n-t of their lifestyles.

 

[manueldelalas]

Because there are like a million privileges only extended to married couples. Hospital visitation, tax benefits, inclusion in health insurance, not having to testify against each other, etc etc.

Well, sorry I'm not united statian so I'm not familiar of how the marriage law applies there, and I don't want to go into specifics of a law, but I was defending the specific text of prop 8 and how that isn't intolerant, let's not get carried with other stuff.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, sorry I'm not united statian so I'm not familiar of how the marriage law applies there, and I don't want to go into specifics of a law, but I was defending the specific text of prop 8 and how that isn't intolerant, let's not get carried with other stuff.

.

Would a law saying "Only a marriage between two people of the same race will be valid or recognized" be intolerant? I mean, it applies to everyone equally.

 

[CornBurrito]

Well, sorry I'm not united statian so I'm not familiar of how the marriage law applies there, and I don't want to go into specifics of a law, but I was defending the specific text of prop 8 and how that isn't intolerant, let's not get carried with other stuff.

You keep saying it isn't intolerant but your definition of what you consider to be an equal marriage law would include marriage laws that forbid interracial marriage.

 

[Dead Man]

Well, sorry I'm not united statian so I'm not familiar of how the marriage law applies there, and I don't want to go into specifics of a law, but I was defending the specific text of prop 8 and how that isn't intolerant, let's not get carried with other stuff.

It is intolerant of gay people marrying the person they love who also consents to being married. How hard is that to understand?

It is almost a textbook example of intolerance. Something being opposed that will have no impact on those opposed to it.

 

[Village]

Why did it have to be this guy of all guys, fire fox is the goat.

 

[NotMyRealName]

I'm married, have 3 kids, thanks for asking.

It's the same reason why a polygamous person can't marry 2 or more women. Because the law defines marriage (well, prop 8 does) as the union of one man and one woman; but that doesn't discriminate gay people or other minorities, everyone has the same right.

I don't know why people here thinks that's intolerant; nobody cares if a gay man lives with another gay man on the same house, nobody forbids them to make a contract to see heritage stuff, etc.

Not really. Women are only able to choose male spouses, and men are only allowed to chooses female spouses. Equality would be allowing men and women the same choice/s when choosing a spouse.

 

[manueldelalas]

I'm going to explain to you what a homosexual is.

A homosexual is somebody who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex, as opposed to the opposite sex.

It follows then, that they would only want to marry a person of the same sex.

People who supported proposition 8, did not want them to be allowed to despite the fact that it has no effect on them.

Why would somebody go out of their way to stop one complete stranger from marrying another complete stranger?

Why? Because they are i-n-t-o-l-e-r-a-n-t of their lifestyles.

I'm going to explain to you what a polygamous person is.

A polygamous person is somebody who is sexually attracted to more than one person instead of only one person.

It follows then, that they would only want to marry more than one person.

People who supported proposition 9?, did not want them to be allowed to despite the fact that it has no effect on them.

Why would somebody go out of their way to stop one complete stranger from marrying more than one complete stranger?

Why? Because they are i-n-t-o-l-e-r-a-n-t of their lifestyles (are they?)

It is intolerant of gay people marrying the person they love who also consents to being married. How hard is that to understand?

It is almost a textbook example of intolerance. Something being opposed that will have no impact on those opposed to it.

Sorry, but the law does not care if you love or not the other person, the law does not judge you. When you marry, nobody asks you if you are gay, black, jew or who your parents were. If the law did that, then it discriminates (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but in the case of marriage it is), but the law in this case, and I'm talking about prop 8, does not do that.

 

[Koppai]

I've been using Chrome lately on my home computer. ;s

 

[ElFly]

I'm going to explain to you what a polygamous person is.

A polygamous person is somebody who is sexually attracted to more than one person instead of only one person.

It follows then, that they would only want to marry more than one person.

People who supported proposition 9?, did not want them to be allowed to despite the fact that it has no effect on them.

Why would somebody go out of their way to stop one complete stranger from marrying more than one complete stranger?

Why? Because they are i-n-t-o-l-e-r-a-n-t of their lifestyles (are they?)

Now do this with interracial marriage.

 

[thelatestmodel]

Chrome runs like shit on my work computer, still switching back from Firefox.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of a boycott for this, provided I understand everything correctly and the problem here is just that Mozilla promoted a guy who has hateful views and makes political donations but does not leverage his position with Mozilla to influence politics in any interesting way (he might still use his salary, but I think that's rather different).

A commitment to substantive free speech requires that we not go after people for political disagreement and that we treat political engagement the same regardless of the views of the people doing the engaging. That is, it's fine to want to go after the Koch brothers because they're trying to control the entire political system and nobody regardless of their political views should be doing that, but even though this guy is going to have had a bigger impact on politics than the average person just because of how much money he can bring to bear, the kind of thing he's done isn't (procedurally) irregular and isn't the sort of thing most people usually get upset about. This is clearly about his political views rather than his method of advocacy.

And maybe there are exceptions around the edges. Maybe the right response to neo-Nazis is to shun them out of society. But let's have some perspective here - there's a pretty big evil-ness gap between opposing gay marriage and wanting to commit genocide. The odiousness of the view needs to overcome the general importance of not punishing people for their political views and activity. But what distinguishes gay marriage as an issue is not so much that it is vitally important to the welfare of gay people but rather that it is absurdly easy to land on the right side of - there's just nothing resembling a reasonable argument against it, such that it's very easy to label opponents bigots. It's a highly salient issue because the answer seems so obvious (to be fair, it seems obvious to people on both sides) rather than because getting it right in the short-term is very important. If you just wanted to punish people who support policy that makes innocent people worse off, because it does that, you should probably start with supporters of the Republicans' economic agenda rather than their social one.

To be clear, I'm not making a "you have to care about these eight other things which are more important than this in order to be allowed to care about this" argument. I'm pointing out that the sorts of principles being applied to justify a Mozilla boycott here (or similar) are completely opposed to existing norms of not punishing people for political disagreement. The arguments would justify boycotts for just about any significant political disagreement, if someone were motivated to do that. And that's a problem because we like these norms and it's very important that we not have boycotts for just about every significant political disagreement. It's a categorical imperative thing. We do need to tolerate a certain amount of intolerance, if it's expressed in a procedurally acceptable way.

I'm going to explain to you what a polygamous person is.

A polygamous person is somebody who is sexually attracted to more than one person instead of only one person.

It follows then, that they would only want to marry more than one person.

People who supported proposition 9?, did not want them to be allowed to despite the fact that it has no effect on them.

Why would somebody go out of their way to stop one complete stranger from marrying more than one complete stranger?

Why? Because they are i-n-t-o-l-e-r-a-n-t of their lifestyles (are they?)

Sorry, but the law does not care if you love or not the other person, the law does not judge you. When you marry, nobody asks you if you are gay, black, jew or who your parents were. If the law did that, then it discriminates (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but in the case of marriage it is), but the law in this case, and I'm talking about prop 8, does not do that.

I think you really need to address the interracial marriage objection in a serious way. You certainly suggest here that it would be a problem if the law took race into account (although it's not clear what you think about differences in race), but it's not at all clear what the basis for this distinction is.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

People sure love to pick and choose what is an outrageous offense that requires boycotting.

Apple and Google fucked over workers for years keeping their wages low, and tried to fuck people over on ebook prices. Where is the boycotts and outrage?

So if you don't boycott everything, you can boycott nothing?

As an individual you should have the right to donate to who you please.

Is any rational person actually saying that an individual shouldn't have this right?

 

[Van Owen]

So if you don't boycott everything, you can boycott nothing?

You can, but you're just a phony and not to be taken seriously.

 

[E92 M3]

I'm going to explain to you what a homosexual is.

A homosexual is somebody who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex, as opposed to the opposite sex.

It follows then, that they would only want to marry a person of the same sex.

People who supported proposition 8, did not want them to be allowed to despite the fact that it has no effect on them.

Why would somebody go out of their way to stop one complete stranger from marrying another complete stranger?

Why? Because they are i-n-t-o-l-e-r-a-n-t of their lifestyles.

Might be because of religious reasons. I don't know and I don't care. If it were up to my people can marry whoever the fuck they want. Their life not mine. And I also don't care what business leaders do in their private life. If it doesn't cross into the business, it doesn't matter.

 

[Mindwipe]

So according to you, 52% of California people are bigots that should be burned on a fire? They have less rights than the 47% that voted against prop 8?

I'm sorry, but it's you that is really intolerant, he did that with his own money and supported this with his own free time. To defend a type of society is not illegal (it was voted in democracy), and people shouldn't be punished for their beliefs.

So by that measure, in the late sixties when the majority of voters thought that interracial marriage should be a criminal offence, they weren't bigots for doing so?

 

[Dead Man]

Sorry, but the law does not care if you love or not the other person, the law does not judge you. When you marry, nobody asks you if you are gay, black, jew or who your parents were. If the law did that, then it discriminates (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but in the case of marriage it is), but the law in this case, and I'm talking about prop 8, does not do that.

They do ask your sex and the sex of the person you are marrying. It discriminates. Sorry. You can repeat your bollocks until you pass out but it doesn't change a damn thing.

Is any rational person actually saying that an individual shouldn't have this right?

I was going to suggest some posters in this thread had done so, but then I saw you included rational in the criteria

 

[EdibleKnife]

I'm glad people are taking a stand to let this guy know what's what. And I'm very glad most of it is being sounded internally. As a CEO though, I really doubt much will change with this guy in particular. He will just land in another cushy position and continue donating, possibly even anonymously just so he doesn't draw anymore attention to himself. People like him never learn anything.

 

[Mindwipe]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of a boycott for this, provided I understand everything correctly and the problem here is just that Mozilla promoted a guy who has hateful views and makes political donations but does not leverage his position with Mozilla to influence politics in any interesting way (he might still use his salary, but I think that's rather different).

I'm not sure you can say this. Generally speaking I'd agree that it's none of our business, but how would this affect, for example, Firefox building in VPN by default to protect homosexual minorities from prosecution in Africa? Such a scenario is already quite plausible (heck, look at Turkey), and the question valid. Can the CEO be trusted to give an objective view or even a view consistent with Mozilla's values?

 

[Mr. RHC]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of a boycott for this, provided I understand everything correctly and the problem here is just that Mozilla promoted a guy who has hateful views and makes political donations but does not leverage his position with Mozilla to influence politics in any interesting way (he might still use his salary, but I think that's rather different).
[...]

And I think that's the crucial part here, we are enabling people through using their services, we contribute to their salary.

And as a CEO, he is not only responsible for the business part of the company but also for its public representation and perhaps employee motiviation.
So I think a boycott could be very effective, as customers we have the power not only to change the way a company or service is recepted but also we can change the ethics of a company if we choose to do so.

While I think that the CEO is probably full of shit, he is entitled to his opinion, nevertheless.

But please not while being the CEO of my browser of choice.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of a boycott for this, provided I understand everything correctly and the problem here is just that Mozilla promoted a guy who has hateful views and makes political donations but does not leverage his position with Mozilla to influence politics in any interesting way (he might still use his salary, but I think that's rather different).

A commitment to substantive free speech requires that we not go after people for political disagreement and that we treat political engagement the same regardless of the views of the people doing the engaging. That is, it's fine to want to go after the Koch brothers because they're trying to control the entire political system and nobody regardless of their political views should be doing that, but even though this guy is going to have had a bigger impact on politics than the average person just because of how much money he can bring to bear, the kind of thing he's done isn't (procedurally) irregular and isn't the sort of thing most people usually get upset about. This is clearly about his political views rather than his method of advocacy.

And maybe there are exceptions around the edges. Maybe the right response to neo-Nazis is to shun them out of society. But let's have some perspective here - there's a pretty big evil-ness gap between opposing gay marriage and wanting to commit genocide. The odiousness of the view needs to overcome the general importance of not punishing people for their political views and activity. But what distinguishes gay marriage as an issue is not so much that it is vitally important to the welfare of gay people but rather that it is absurdly easy to land on the right side of - there's just nothing resembling a reasonable argument against it, such that it's very easy to label opponents bigots. It's a highly salient issue because the answer seems so obvious (to be fair, it seems obvious to people on both sides) rather than because getting it right in the short-term is very important. If you just wanted to punish people who support policy that makes innocent people worse off, because it does that, you should probably start with supporters of the Republicans' economic agenda rather than their social one.

To be clear, I'm not making a "you have to care about these eight other things which are more important than this in order to be allowed to care about this" argument. I'm pointing out that the sorts of principles being applied to justify a Mozilla boycott here (or similar) are completely opposed to existing norms of not punishing people for political disagreement. The arguments would justify boycotts for just about any significant political disagreement, if someone were motivated to do that. And that's a problem because we like these norms and it's very important that we not have boycotts for just about every significant political disagreement. It's a categorical imperative thing. We do need to tolerate a certain amount of intolerance, if it's expressed in a procedurally acceptable way.

Also I agree with most of this. I don't think I would boycott Mozilla over this

 

[Dead Man]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of a boycott for this, provided I understand everything correctly and the problem here is just that Mozilla promoted a guy who has hateful views and makes political donations but does not leverage his position with Mozilla to influence politics in any interesting way (he might still use his salary, but I think that's rather different).

A commitment to substantive free speech requires that we not go after people for political disagreement and that we treat political engagement the same regardless of the views of the people doing the engaging. That is, it's fine to want to go after the Koch brothers because they're trying to control the entire political system and nobody regardless of their political views should be doing that, but even though this guy is going to have had a bigger impact on politics than the average person just because of how much money he can bring to bear, the kind of thing he's done isn't (procedurally) irregular and isn't the sort of thing most people usually get upset about. This is clearly about his political views rather than his method of advocacy.

And maybe there are exceptions around the edges. Maybe the right response to neo-Nazis is to shun them out of society. But let's have some perspective here - there's a pretty big evil-ness gap between opposing gay marriage and wanting to commit genocide. The odiousness of the view needs to overcome the general importance of not punishing people for their political views and activity. But what distinguishes gay marriage as an issue is not so much that it is vitally important to the welfare of gay people but rather that it is absurdly easy to land on the right side of - there's just nothing resembling a reasonable argument against it, such that it's very easy to label opponents bigots. It's a highly salient issue because the answer seems so obvious (to be fair, it seems obvious to people on both sides) rather than because getting it right in the short-term is very important. If you just wanted to punish people who support policy that makes innocent people worse off, because it does that, you should probably start with supporters of the Republicans' economic agenda rather than their social one.

To be clear, I'm not making a "you have to care about these eight other things which are more important than this in order to be allowed to care about this" argument. I'm pointing out that the sorts of principles being applied to justify a Mozilla boycott here (or similar) are completely opposed to existing norms of not punishing people for political disagreement. The arguments would justify boycotts for just about any significant political disagreement, if someone were motivated to do that. And that's a problem because we like these norms and it's very important that we not have boycotts for just about every significant political disagreement. It's a categorical imperative thing. We do need to tolerate a certain amount of intolerance, if it's expressed in a procedurally acceptable way.



I think you really need to address the interracial marriage objection in a serious way. You certainly suggest here that it would be a problem if the law took race into account (although it's not clear what you think about differences in race), but it's not at all clear what the basis for this distinction is.

It's not just political disagreement, it is actively harming people. If it was a debate and he presented information, that would be one thing, but campaigning against people like me being married to people they love is far beyond a political disagreement for me.

 

[manueldelalas]

They do ask your sex and the sex of the person you are marrying. It discriminates. Sorry. You can repeat your bollocks until you pass out but it doesn't change a damn thing.

People are born man or woman, that's what sex is, there is no one left behind for not being man or woman.

For the record, I haven't emitted my personal opinion on gay marriage on this thread, and I feel attacked. I haven't even said if I'm for it or against it (or if I don't really care).

The only thing I'm trying to say is that Mozilla's new CEO is not an intolerant person for supporting prop 8, and why it is not an intolerant law. I don't think I can add anything more to the discussion of that.

But I've seen this witch hunt that has been growing on the internet and it is worrisome. There are people here saying that Mozilla should change CEO in the name of gay rights, and at the same time complaining that gay people have been fired from their jobs because of being gay (something I've never seen in my whole life). So, on one hand they complain that people get fired because of their life style and on the other hand they want people fired because of their life style. How can you not see it?

Look, your argument is that since the text only defines what a marriage IS, it isn't discriminatory, because it's not defining what marriage ISN'T. Except that the implicit meaning of defining what marriage is also defines what it isn't.

That's not my argument at all...

 

[Alucrid]

For the record, I haven't emitted my personal opinion on gay marriage on this thread, and I feel attacked. I haven't even said if I'm for it or against it (or if I don't really care).

The only thing I'm trying to say is that Mozilla's new CEO is not an intolerant person for supporting prop 8, and why it is not an intolerant law. I don't think I can add anything more to the discussion of that.

But I've seen this witch hunt that has been growing on the internet and it is worrisome. There are people here saying that Mozilla should change CEO in the name of gay rights, and at the same time complaining that gay people have been fired from their jobs because of being gay (something I've never seen in my whole life). So, on one hand they complain that people get fired because of their life style and on the other hand they want people fired because of their life style. How can you not see it?

Look, your argument is that since the text only defines what a marriage IS, it isn't discriminatory, because it's not defining what marriage ISN'T. Except that the implicit meaning of defining what marriage is also defines what it isn't.

 

[daycru]

Apple and Google fucked over workers for years keeping their wages low, and tried to fuck people over on ebook prices. Where is the boycotts and outrage?

Gay marriage is last winnable liberal position of even passing relevance. It's all that seems to count.

 

[Laughing Banana]

So let's just say.... hypothetically speaking, there are a hundred people now working under Mozilla that really support gay rights and really abhor those who are against it, like this new CEO of theirs.

Do you folks think it is *wrong* for them to, say, keep continue working with Mozilla despite the stance their CEO has taken towards the issue they are strongly have feelings for? Will any of you berate them if they choose to keep working with Mozilla?

 

[Twiforce]

So according to you, 52% of California people are bigots that should be burned on a fire? They have less rights than the 47% that voted against prop 8?

I'm sorry, but it's you that is really intolerant, he did that with his own money and supported this with his own free time. To defend a type of society is not illegal (it was voted in democracy), and people shouldn't be punished for their beliefs.

Yes, I said that people should who vote for Prop 8 should be burned in a fire. /s Are you seriously equating not getting business to being freakin burned alive? Wholly unnecessary hyperbole.

I mean, if Jack visits a local mom and pop candy store, but Jack is gay and finds out that owners donated to Prop 8, he's a *bigot* if he choose to stop visiting their store? I mean jeez, I'm not suggesting we fucking imprison them or beat them up or fine them or anything. I'm just saying, it's fully within people's rights to boycott a product or service if it's provided to them by people who voted for Prop 8. I can't believe your trying to label people who care enough about LGBT rights to boycott thing BIGOTS. Do you realize what it is you're saying here?

Don't give me shit about "the will of the 47% being imposed upon the rights of the 52%" Nobodies rights are being imposed upon or taken away. It's not your RIGHT to force Jack to go to your candy store. Jack is fully within his rights not to give you his own money if he doesn't agree with you bigoted beliefs. That doesn't make him a bigot; it doesn't mean you're being oppressed.

And yeah, I'm sorry that I'm not "tolerant" of people who want to tell me that I'm not allowed to get married, that I don't have the right to have the same civil privileges as straight people, that I'm essentially subhuman. Sorry I'm such a BIGOT who doesn't like giving my OWN MONEY to HOMOPHOBES. How BIGOTED of me.

I wonder, how would you react to somebody boycotting a business because the owner donated to causes opposing interracial marriage? What about segregation? What about women's suffrage? Where do you draw the fucking line, I'm curious, tell me.

the 52% that voted for Prop 8 do not have "less rights." They have just as much to boycott a business if they don't agree with the owner's ideas. Nor is allowing gay marriage infringing on their rights.

But I guess boycotting = bigotry now. SMH.

 

[RedShift]

But I've seen this witch hunt that has been growing on the internet and it is worrisome. There are people here saying that Mozilla should change CEO in the name of gay rights, and at the same time complaining that gay people have been fired from their jobs because of being gay (something I've never seen in my whole life). So, on one hand they complain that people get fired because of their life style and on the other hand they want people fired because of their life style. How can you not see it?

You can choose whether or not to support and donate to intolerant laws, you can't choose whether or not to be gay. That's the difference.

 

[slit]

I'm married, have 3 kids, thanks for asking.

It's the same reason why a polygamous person can't marry 2 or more women. Because the law defines marriage (well, prop 8 does) as the union of one man and one woman; but that doesn't discriminate gay people or other minorities, everyone has the same right.

I don't know why people here thinks that's intolerant; nobody cares if a gay man lives with another gay man on the same house, nobody forbids them to make a contract to see heritage stuff, etc.

Now please explain how marrying two people, which NOBODY can do legally is the same as two people who want to enter into a contract that only is availble under certain gender specifications? The ridiculous excuse that because they can live together has nothing to do with the issue. That's like saying well since Rosa Parks can get on the bus she shouldn't complain just because she wants the same rights as the ones sitting in the front of the bus.

 

[Alucrid]

People are born man or woman, that's what sex is, there is no one left behind for not being man or woman.

For the record, I haven't emitted my personal opinion on gay marriage on this thread, and I feel attacked. I haven't even said if I'm for it or against it (or if I don't really care).

The only thing I'm trying to say is that Mozilla's new CEO is not an intolerant person for supporting prop 8, and why it is not an intolerant law. I don't think I can add anything more to the discussion of that.

But I've seen this witch hunt that has been growing on the internet and it is worrisome. There are people here saying that Mozilla should change CEO in the name of gay rights, and at the same time complaining that gay people have been fired from their jobs because of being gay (something I've never seen in my whole life). So, on one hand they complain that people get fired because of their life style and on the other hand they want people fired because of their life style. How can you not see it?

That's not my argument at all...

It isn't?

It's not intolerance, because the law is not discriminating people, that law is equal to all. If the law says only a man and a woman can have a valid marriage, the law isn't saying that a gay man can't marry a woman or that a straight man can marry another man, it's not intolerant, because it's not against minorities.

By your same argument, a monogamist law is also intolerant, because there are people who would like to marry more than one woman (or vice versa) and the law doesn't permit that. There are also people that want to marry girls bellow 16 or 17 years, there's also people wanting to marry another member of their family (brother, cousin) and the law don't permit that either.

Also, prop 8 was a proposition made by the people of California, born from the people, and voted by a huge majority (like 80% I think).

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm not sure you can say this. Generally speaking I'd agree that it's none of our business, but how would this affect, for example, Firefox building in VPN by default to protect homosexual minorities from prosecution in Africa? Such a scenario is already quite plausible (heck, look at Turkey), and the question valid. Can the CEO be trusted to give an objective view or even a view consistent with Mozilla's values?

I think this is a legitimate concern. But it's just a concern that Mozilla ought to want to address and doesn't immediately warrant a boycott, and this concern does not appear to be what's motivating most of this. Plenty of people do perfectly good jobs even though their political or religious views alone suggest that they'd be less likely to do a perfectly good job than someone else.

And I think that's the crucial part here, we are enabling people through using their services, we contribute to their salary.

This is again a big-picture norm thing, for me. It's absolutely outrageous when conservatives suggest that employers ought to be able to determine what their employees do with their compensation. This isn't theoretical - whether employers can effectively bar their female employees from accessing contraception, because it's "their" money going towards it, is a live issue right now. I think those employers are not just wrong on the issue; they're also procedurally wrong in how they're going about opposing contraception.

 

[Dead Man]

People are born man or woman, that's what sex is, there is no one left behind for not being man or woman.

People are born gay or black or asian as well. Your argument is nonsensical at this point.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

According to statistics pulled from my anus, 50% of all CEOs are terrible people who you wouldn't want to support for one reason or another, and we just mostly don't know about it.

Actually I was just telling somebody this the other day, although my number was more like 75%.

It's led me to decide this: I'm going to have to assume that most CEOs and big business execs are actually complete assholes, and any time I spend money anywhere, chances are part of my dollar is going into the pocket of somebody with awful views and/or hobbies, and I'll probably be contributing to it financially in some small way.

SO, this is what I need from these wealthy cretins: don't be such an asshole that it makes the news cycle, because then I'll know about it, and I'm not going to be giving you any more money. The guy from Chick-Fil-A, the guy from Jimmy John's and Papa John, you couldn't keep it out of my face. You were SUCH assholes, that I wound up hearing about it. So I'll give my money to some other asshole who I'm sure is just as bad, but at least I don't know about it yet.

Mr. Mozilla, welcome to the club!

 

[MooseKnuckles]

I'm married, have 3 kids, thanks for asking.

It's the same reason why a polygamous person can't marry 2 or more women. Because the law defines marriage (well, prop 8 does) as the union of one man and one woman; but that doesn't discriminate gay people or other minorities, everyone has the same right.

I don't know why people here thinks that's intolerant; nobody cares if a gay man lives with another gay man on the same house, nobody forbids them to make a contract to see heritage stuff, etc.

This statement makes zero sense. On the surface, everyone has the 'same rights' insofar as they are able to marry someone of the opposite gender. But if you think about this for literally more than 3 seconds you will realise that it is absolutely discriminatory because it stops gay people from marrying the person that they want to based on their sexual preferences. Therefore people with homosexual preferences cannot be married (to the person of their choice), therefore they are discriminated against as they are not afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.

Oh and as for bringing up things like incest and underage marriage as similar scenarios to gay marriage (which you did earlier), there are actually a number of additional reasons these things are illegal e.g. incest is often the result of some kind of abuse of power, someone underage lacks the ability to give informed, legal consent to be married. There is no logical, non-discriminatory reason that two homosexual adults should be able to marry.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

You can, but you're just a phony and not to be taken seriously.

That's ridiculous. Just because someone doesn't do something 100%, doesn't mean the percent they do is meaningless. People aren't prefect. I don't believe there is anyone alive who has boycotted everything they "should" boycott

 

[kick51]

You can, but you're just a phony and not to be taken seriously.

ok holden caulfield

 

[manueldelalas]

People are born gay or black or asian as well. Your argument is nonsensical at this point.

And this is the root of the problem, the stupid classifications.

For your information I don't consider myself straight or whatever arbitrary race or gender banner you want to put me under. I consider myself a human being, and a man, and I stop there, and even if you consider yourself a black asian gay person (or whatever), I think I'm discussing with "just" another human being, no classification, and I don't accept anyone labeling me.

This statement makes zero sense. On the surface, everyone has the 'same rights' insofar as they are able to marry someone of the opposite gender. But if you think about this for literally more than 3 seconds you will realise that it is absolutely discriminatory because it stops gay people from marrying the person that they want to based on their sexual preferences. Therefore people with homosexual preferences cannot be married (to the person of their choice), therefore they are discriminated against as they are not afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.

Oh and as for bringing up things like incest and underage marriage as similar scenarios to gay marriage (which you did earlier), there are actually a number of additional reasons these things are illegal e.g. incest is often the result of some kind of abuse of power, someone underage lacks the ability to give informed, legal consent to be married. There is no logical, non-discriminatory reason that two homosexual adults should be able to marry.

Your problem is that you consider "gender" (which is quite a recent invention) and sex to be the same, and that law does not care about gender or race.

About incest, I agree that it's often the result of abuse of power, but not always, and I'm talking about the "not always" part. What if two consenting cousins or brothers want to marry?

About underage, the 18 years old limit of age is an arbitrary thing that we have agreed upon (the majority), but there are 14-15 year old people that have the mentality of an adult and by your argument, are being discriminated by the law that says 18 years is the age to make decisions. Similarly, there are people with 24 or 27 years that have the mind of a little kid and can marry. But that law is not intolerant, see?

 

[lmpaler]

I'm not sure why anyone should care. I could see if he used company funds... but he used his personal money to donate to a cause that he personally believed in. This has nothing to do with the company that he works for.

This. I'm not boycotting Firefox because of the personal beliefs of one individual. Especially considering how they promote openness and freedom within the company.

Also just because he donated to that doesn't mean he hates gays in any fashion. It's his personal belief and his alone, why it is even as issue is beyond me.

(For the record my mother is lesbian and has been since I was 12. Gays and lesbians have always been a huge part in my life even before my mother started batting for the other team. I get why the LGBT community wants legal marriage, but I also understand why people oppose it, even though I disagree with their reasons, I understand them)

 

[Seth C]

I'm just going to assume the guy is in the closet.

 

[Christine]

Not really. Women are only able to choose male spouses, and men are only allowed to chooses female spouses. Equality would be allowing men and women the same choice/s when choosing a spouse.

This was a central point of the Walker ruling to overturn Prop 8.