OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Robert Marrs]

Ugh. He has the right to believe whatever he wants. That is the whole point of america. If you want to be against gays have at it so long as you don't go around committing crimes against them. It seems like the very people who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of anyone who doesn't share their views. So long as he does not inject his political views into company policy he can believe anything he wants about marriage. How about dropping the you're either with us or against us mentality? We need to start reverting back to a "I mind my own business if you mind yours" model and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing and thinking. That goes for both sides.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As I said before, only being in love should not grant you rights that other people don't have - the extra support for marriage historically has always been implicitly a support for the hardships of raising children.

However, raising kids isn't a requirement.

And either way, if you want people to be treated differently simply for being love, it makes no sense to keep this restriction in number.

That seems to make sense.

However, given that straight people can get married whether or not they are going to have kids, refusing to allow gay people to get married is discriminating against them.

Now, you could argue that it'd be better to dissolve marriage altogether, fine, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Currently, we have inequality, which allowing gay marriage would alleviate, to an extent.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

You keep repeating this but it's simply not true, most countries (at least mine anyway) already has a benefit in place for raising children and the tax breaks for marriage are for completely separate reasons.

Good for them then, I guess. What is the rationale for providing tax breaks (and, I suppose, residence permit) for married couple then? Does it apply to polygamous and polyandrous unions as well? Can relatives marry, and if not, why?

I would be surprised if the "equality" crowd wouldn't complain in face of any lack of equality.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

And either way, if you want people to be treated differently simply for being love, it makes no sense to keep this restriction in number.

That seems to make sense.

However, given that straight people can get married whether or not they are going to have kids, refusing to allow gay people to get married is discriminating against them.

Now, you could argue that it'd be better to dissolve marriage altogether, fine, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Currently, we have inequality, which allowing gay marriage would alleviate, to an extent.

Yes, current marriage is inconsistent precisely for the example you made; but rationally, it would make a lot more sense to restrict the extra benefits only to those that have children than allowing gay marriage - as it would fix one hole while opening another, one that no "equality" activist seems to be pretty eager to plug - because it doesn't affect a great number of them, I guess - so much for equal opportunities.

 

[JazzJack2]

Does it apply to polygamous and polyandrous unions as well? Can relatives marry, and if not, why?

Completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, here's a helpful little hint for basic argument structure : address the topic at hand and don't go off into irrelevant matters.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ugh. He has the right to believe whatever he wants. That is the whole point of america. If you want to be against gays have at it so long as you don't go around committing crimes against them. It seems like the very people who preach tolerance are the most intolerant of anyone who doesn't share their views. So long as he does not inject his political views into company policy he can believe anything he wants about marriage. How about dropping the you're either with us or against us mentality? We need to start reverting back to a "I mind my own business if you mind yours" model and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing and thinking. That goes for both sides.

Firstly, this isn't simply about what he believes. He went out of his way to support a hate group.

Secondly, Okcupid didn't restrict his right to believe what he wants. They didn't demand he changes his views. They didn't push for laws restricting his right to marry. They didn't stop Firefox working on their site. All they did was point of his homophobia to their users, many of whom are LGBT, and ask if they'd want to use a different browser.

When someone decided to fund a hate group, then you can't blame people unhappy for that for promoting an us or them ideology.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, here's a helpful little hint for basic argument structure : address the topic at hand and don't go off into irrelevant matters.

It is, in the light of what we already said - and in the interest of equality. I take the answer is a no.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Firstly, this isn't simply about what he believes. He went out of his way to support a hate group.

Secondly, Okcupid didn't restrict his right to believe what he wants. They didn't demand he changes his views. They didn't push for laws restricting his right to marry. They didn't stop Firefox working on their site. All they did was point of his homophobia to their users, many of whom are LGBT, and ask if they'd want to use a different browser.

Sorry - but in the light of what we just said, you are STILL claiming that supporting prop8 or being against SS"M" is a mental illness? that it is hate?

 

[CriticalMiss]

Well I'm going to see how Mozilla deal with this before possibly jumping to another browser. It seems a bit premature to leave now if he will be pressured out by his own staff and public rabbling.

And does anyone have recommendations for other browsers? I'm eyeing up Opera because I want nothing to do with Chrome (used it before and it was shit) and IE is... well, IE.

 

[Grace_Omega]

Yes, current marriage is inconsistent precisely for the example you made; but rationally, it would make a lot more sense to restrict the extra benefits only to those that have children than allowing gay marriage - as it would fix one hole while opening another, one that no "equality" activist seems to be pretty eager to plug

That's probably because the vast, vast majority of people don't share your particular definition of marriage as a means solely for procreation. You're arguing an extreme fringe position here and loudly wondering why no one will agree with you.

 

[Saetha]

Hey. this is bizarrely relevant to current US politics right now. There's this whole case going through the Supreme Court about how corporations shouldn't be forced to provide birth control to their employees by Obamacare, since it goes against the religious beliefs of the people in charge. And all the detractors say they can't pull the "religious freedom"" card because corporations aren't people.

Well, doesn't that hold true here then, too? Mozilla is not it's CEO. He may have a shitty opinion, but if the CEO's opinion on birth control can't be applied to and effect the whole company, then the CEO's opinion on gay marriage can't be applied to effect the whole company. Kinda weird that these things popped up in such close proximity to one another.

Not that anyone will probably even see this. Who even reads posts this far back in the topic, anyway?

EDIT: Aaaand nevermind! Because damn, tempers are riding high in this topic. I'd rather not have any part of this. Continue to duke it out amongst yourselves. Marriage equality will be a reality someday, the LGBT movement's too popular among the general populace for it not to be, and especially among younger Americans who will, eventually become older Americans and thus a higher priority for policymakers. I'll just sit back and wash my hands of this until that day comes.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Firstly, this isn't simply about what he believes. He went out of his way to support a hate group.

Secondly, Okcupid didn't restrict his right to believe what he wants. They didn't demand he changes his views. They didn't push for laws restricting his right to marry. They didn't stop Firefox working on their site. All they did was point of his homophobia to their users, many of whom are LGBT, and ask if they'd want to use a different browser.

Sorry - but in the light of what we just said, you are STILL claiming that supporting prop8 or being against SS"M" is a mental illness? that it is hate?

In the vast majority of cases it will be due to homophobia, which is bigotry, yes.

Most people don't have an ideology where marriage is solely for the purpose of raising kids.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Still, this doesn't support Prop 8. Real libertarians approve gay marriage, because they approve the state having little to no influence in this regard. As for the LGBT community rejecting other forms of love, well, I've not witnessed this. I'm a critic of the vocal LGBT community and the liberal community that supports them regardless (I believe that the sexism and racism that is often expressed in the LGBT community without feat of reprimand to be abhorrent), and as a result of which I can easily believe that there is an "anti-polygamy" section of the support. However, this only proves such members to be hypocrites - not that the underlying policy of the "removing the gay marriage ban" is flawed.

Funny - I disapprove of gay marriage _precisely_ because the State currently has influence over marriage, and is now actively pushing to redefine it in a way that excludes procreation and is inconsistent with actual equality. Agreed about the rest.

So instead of supporting removal of the state's control over marriage, you just want to keep he state in control and needlessly exclude a bunch of people who just want the same state benefits.

 

[Loonyyy]

Hell of a lot of people who are all for gay rights and who have no problem with gay people, until someone decides to show that they have no problem with gay people, and fight for gay rights.

Oh, I'm for gay rights. Just not that way. 'Cause you're like Nazis. And you're hurting the poor businesspeople (Not understanding that the pressure is directed at the CEO and the board, for the CEO to either fix his shit, or the board to kick him out. No-one gives a shit about Mozilla, they give a shit about not actively supporting anti-gay bigotry.)

Honestly, this kind of makes me feel sick. This insidious homophobia, where people put on a nice face and let their hate run deep beneath it and decry a completely harmless statement of the very free speech they keep trying to use to justify hatred, all while insisting that they support gays, that they have gay, lesbian, or transgender friends, that they aren't homophobic. They're just ok with these people being second class citizens. They're just ok with people trying to legislate against their rights. They'll tie it to Chick-Fil-A, a group who has sponsored actual genocide against homosexuals in Uganda, thinking this makes their case.

Whether or not you're homophobic "Deep down" in that Disney place you call your heart, you're acting like it. If you don't want to be called it, or recognised for it, stop doing that.

And seriously, if you compare pro-gay protest, entirely in speech form, to the acts of the Nazis by misunderstanding the "First they came for" bit, then you need to go home and rethink your life. Reenroll in elementary school.

 

[JazzJack2]

It is, in the light of what we already said - and in the interest of equality.

No it isn't, it's just simple whataboutery.

I take the answer is a no.

No it's a yes, as long as the relationships are consensual and non coercive I don't care who marries who or how many people marries how many others.

 

[Loonyyy]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

With all due respect, I don't regard LGBT people as spam.

You win an internet.

It comes with cookies. It's got rather a large amount of porn on it, it's up to you whether you clean it off first.

Everyone else: IT'S OVER. THIS INTERNET THING HAS BEEN WON. WE CAN ALL GO HOME.

 

[tangoprime]

He went out of his way to support a hate group.
When someone decides to fund a hate group, you can't blame the people who are unhappy about that for promoting an 'us or them' ideology.

Which "hate group" did he fund? 52.24% of the population of California? He gave a personal contribution to raise awareness of a piece of legislation he supported.
Also, fixed your second sentence so it's easier to understand, and I disagree. If someone can arbitrarily consider a majority of the population who share their opinion a "hate group", then they can be blamed for promoting an "us or them" ideology.

Also, I'm completely for LGBT having equal rights, I've even volunteered time and money in support of this position. I also happen to disagree with SSM, as "Marriage" is a traditional religious institution. I'm all for civil partnerships conferring the same benefits as marriage partnerships, hell, I'm all for states not allowing state-supported "marriages" at all and simply calling all of them "civil unions." I'm also strongly against companies discriminating by not providing the same benefits to same-sex couples as married couples. IIRC, prop 8 simply banned SSM, but ensured civil unions with the same rights as marriages continued to be available.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

In the vast majority of cases it will be due to homophobia, which is bigotry, yes.

Most people don't have an ideology where marriage is solely for the purpose of raising kids.

How can you be sure that this is the case of Mozilla's CEO?

That's probably because the vast, vast majority of people don't share your particular definition of marriage as a means solely for procreation. You're arguing an extreme fringe position here and loudly wondering why no one will agree with you.

Of course, I understand and I respect that - but if you are going to redefine it to include same-sex unions because of "love", you cannot possibly be so inconsistent - you should contemplate all cases where love is involved. Otherwise you are just being irrational and discriminatory, ironically the same thing you accuse your opponents of.

Finally, unions where people get together explicitly with the purpose of starting a family exist, in great abundance, are not a minority and they were always called "marriage" long before people started marrying only for mutual convenience. It doesn't make sense to claim that they are now the same thing.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Not a mental illness, hasn't even been considered a mental illness in the United States for over forty years, and the overwhelming majorty of psychiatric professionals will tell you that its not, alongside with scientists who have evidence that its not.

So why keep using a term that is used to describe a mental illnesses then. Because it has that nice "racist" ring to it, I guess.