OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[AgedGrunt]

Equality for gay relationships - Homosexuality is permitted in the US; marriage is a civil issue.

OkCupid is for creating love - Which is why your "they would have made what we did illegal" nonsense is, well, nonsense. Your service doesn't marry people and love != marriage.

>If you want gay marriage now, move to a US state that allows it.
>It's not in your state? Then do something about it.
>For the entire nation? Then do something about it. We have a Constitution and it doesn't mention marriage, but you could change that.

No matter what you do, stop pushing people. Boycotts, advertisements, activism in social media -- obnoxious people, even if they have a good cause, are going to get pushed away because no one likes to be badgered, pressured or annoyed.

For the record, I've recently been trying Chrome and it's still not a FF killer; the customization is thin and sucks. It's also a blowhard for something that's supposed to be lean and fast.

This isn't asking for support, this is like asking people to make a sacrifice, as if the insult to our intelligence wasn't enough. OKC's move is everything that is wrong with the gay rights movement, overloaded with conscience, bitterness and resolve to "destroy" opposition. Great way to lead equality, make enemies of people and destroy them.

 

[Lightknight]

See there's a problem here. Belief is only belief if it's not hurting others. You can be religious, I dont care. I think you're wrong but that's that. This man is masking bigotry and hatred as religious freedom. The bible doesn't define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, at least not throughout. It's inconsistent that way.

The freedom of religion is also interpreted as the freedom of belief. What you believe does not necessarily have to be tied to a religion to be covered by this freedom.

He is actively trying to hurt others. Freedom of speech stops being freedom if you cause genuine pain.

You are taking tremendous liberties with "hurt". You should know that Russia used the "harm" concept to justify their actions against the LGBT community during the Olympic games. Hate speech is generally seen to be something that advocates actual violence against people or something particularly obscene (usually around children). In no circumstance would it apply to supporting a political cause. Sorry, but it just should not be extended this far just because these people are on the other side of a controversial issue from you. This is a belief that some insane number like 60% of Americans hold even if they support gay rights. Which brings me to the next point.

Look, many of the people in favor of traditional marriage aren't arguing against gay people having the rights afforded to legally married couple. They are just trying to protect what they believe is a clearly defined religious and cultural term. You and I agree that they're wrong, it's a highly relative and subjective term. But that's not the point. They believe marriage is a specific thing and are trying to prevent the government from controlling it.

As I stated, I agree that the government should not have any say in the matter. But I also firmly believe that the government should not be able to issue marriage licenses at all except to permit a marriage that would otherwise be illegal (e.g. an 18 year old marrying a 16 year old with parental consent). Marriage is too fundamental a human right. You SHOULD be able to choose who you commit to without having to get a piece of paper and be recognized as a union. The US started requiring them to prevent inter-racial marriages and this has somehow survived the times and is now holding back other groups. The government should only have the most basic of requirements to allow any consenting adults to enter a civil union. It is in error that the government has appropriated a religious and social term (because in the 1800's they thought they could) and it is the cause of this problem today. Where people who have no problem with homosexuals now think they have to put their foot down with marriage because that means something specific to them.

Again, I personally don't care. I don't give two flying shits on Sunday what other people do with their lives as long as it isn't directly hurting people. (the real hurt, not the loose way you defined it)

 

[Vareoth]

He missed my point that by making it socially acceptable to blacklist people for their personal convictions you set a precedent of what means are acceptable when interacting with other human beings who disagree. Also putting what is and isn't acceptable for a belief on whether or not that belief causes someone or a group of people pain is completely useless. Causing clear physical or fiscal damage is the only time freedom of speech ends. Saying freedom of speech ends where my feelings begin makes freedom of speech all but useless because feelings are cheap and intangible.

However I'll say this. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The man was absolutely within his own rights to give that money away, just as I am with calling his position stupid. This issue is not an issue of freedom of speech, it's an issue of the lgbt movement and those who advocate for becoming increasingly willing to use terrible political tactics to achieve, such as black listing and try getting people in their private lives. I'm a gay woman who wants to go let married and supports most lgbt issues, but these trends away from civil discourse and showing the country were regular people too in favor of Mccarthy style blacklisting has left me disillusioned with the movement.

Edit due to quote fucking up

I most certainly agree with you on saying that intangible feelings are no way to measure if something should be said or not, but if you say something or do something that is going to offend someone you should be prepared to get some negativity shoved your way. One should, in my opinion, be prepared to defend his or her point of view (this is not required of anyone though). The problem is that some people go completely overboard with this and create a huge issue where first there was none. This, of course, creates a negative backlash.

And to clarify, what I meant by "incitement of violence and hatred" was specifically saying or doing something that leads to real, tangible damage. So we're on one line here.

About the politics behind the movement; there always will be a group of people that are more radical about getting their point across. Sadly, those people often have the loudest voices. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who who see things in a more equalistic (that is a word, right?) and logical way (I hope). Some people are just more easily led by negative emotions.

The only thing that irks me about this whole debate, however, is that some other folk (not necessarily in this thread, don't feel offended) seem to think that it would be best if gay people would just stop pushing for reforms because it annoys other people. Change does not come by sitting still and twiddling your thumbs. Strong but reasonable steps must be taken by any movement if they want to change anything. Sometimes you will have a conflict with a person or organisation. I don't see any way around that.

 

[The Material Sheep]

He missed my point that by making it socially acceptable to blacklist people for their personal convictions you set a precedent of what means are acceptable when interacting with other human beings who disagree. Also putting what is and isn't acceptable for a belief on whether or not that belief causes someone or a group of people pain is completely useless. Causing clear physical or fiscal damage is the only time freedom of speech ends. Saying freedom of speech ends where my feelings begin makes freedom of speech all but useless because feelings are cheap and intangible.

However I'll say this. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The man was absolutely within his own rights to give that money away, just as I am with calling his position stupid. This issue is not an issue of freedom of speech, it's an issue of the lgbt movement and those who advocate for becoming increasingly willing to use terrible political tactics to achieve, such as black listing and try getting people in their private lives. I'm a gay woman who wants to go let married and supports most lgbt issues, but these trends away from civil discourse and showing the country were regular people too in favor of Mccarthy style blacklisting has left me disillusioned with the movement.

Edit due to quote fucking up

I most certainly agree with you on saying that intangible feelings are no way to measure if something should be said or not, but if you say something or do something that is going to offend someone you should be prepared to get some negativity shoved your way. One should, in my opinion, be prepared to defend his or her point of view (this is not required of anyone though). The problem is that some people go completely overboard with this and create a huge issue where first there was none. This, of course, creates a negative backlash.

And to clarify, what I meant by "incitement of violence and hatred" was specifically saying or doing something that leads to real, tangible damage. So we're on one line here.

About the politics behind the movement; there always will be a group of people that are more radical about getting their point across. Sadly, those people often have the loudest voices. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who who see things in a more equalistic (that is a word, right?) and logical way (I hope). Some people are just more easily led by negative emotions.

The only thing that irks me about this whole debate, however, is that some other folk (not necessarily in this thread, don't feel offended) seem to think that it would be best if gay people would just stop pushing for reforms because it annoys other people. Change does not come by sitting still and twiddling your thumbs. Strong but reasonable steps must be taken by any movement if they want to change anything. Sometimes you will have a conflict with a person or organisation. I don't see any way around that.

Change comes from showing dissatisfaction, in reasonable ways. Shared humanity is often a big part of that. Using near insidious methods of political scheming and dishonest or hateful methods only serves to cast a movement in an incredibly poor light.

There are other ways of dealing with conflict then targeting opposing members for black listing, and this inability to separate the professional and personal life of individuals. It makes it so people distrust and look at the movement as petty and solely concerned with it's own political life, and not the actual goals it was created in order to achieve.

 

[Vareoth]

There are other ways of dealing with conflict then targeting opposing members for black listing, and this inability to separate the professional and personal life of individuals. It makes it so people distrust and look at the movement as petty and solely concerned with it's own political life, and not the actual goals it was created in order to achieve.

I completely agree with you. While I do think that true balance is unobtainable, any person or movement should strife for it's goals, while at the same time pursuing an acceptable equilibrium in society.

But I'm afraid there will always be a few rotten apples.

 

[The Material Sheep]

There are other ways of dealing with conflict then targeting opposing members for black listing, and this inability to separate the professional and personal life of individuals. It makes it so people distrust and look at the movement as petty and solely concerned with it's own political life, and not the actual goals it was created in order to achieve.

I completely agree with you. While I do think that true balance is unobtainable, any person or movement should strife for it's goals, while at the same time pursuing an acceptable equilibrium in society.

But I'm afraid there will always be a few rotten apples.

I'm sorry if it's just my unbridled cynicism with the movement I've become involved in, but I feel since online activism has become a thing, the rot far outweighs the good at this point. I feel the well will be irrevocably poisoned just like what happened with occupy wallstreet.

 

[Thaluikhain]

They're telling people not to use the product of a company because they hired a man with political/religious/social affiliations/positions that OKcupid doesn't agree with.

No, they aren't. They are asking people not to use the product because they hired a mean who has taken actions to deny rights. Not for his beliefs.

How would you feel about a Muslim dating site that asked users not use software made by a company that hires Jews or Christians?

A specific Jew or Christian that supported denying rights to Muslims?

I don't see any problem with them asking users not to use that browser.

Then there's also the flipping of the scenario altogether. What about a dating site that asked someone not to use IE or Chrome when doing whatever because they hired a homosexual?

Which, of course, is not flipping the scenario, because being homosexual is not remotely the same as trying to deny people their rights.

 

[The Material Sheep]

They're telling people not to use the product of a company because they hired a man with political/religious/social affiliations/positions that OKcupid doesn't agree with.

No, they aren't. They are asking people not to use the product because they hired a mean who has taken actions to deny rights. Not for his beliefs.

How would you feel about a Muslim dating site that asked users not use software made by a company that hires Jews or Christians?

A specific Jew or Christian that supported denying rights to Muslims?

I don't see any problem with them asking users not to use that browser.

Then there's also the flipping of the scenario altogether. What about a dating site that asked someone not to use IE or Chrome when doing whatever because they hired a homosexual?

Which, of course, is not flipping the scenario, because being homosexual is not remotely the same as trying to deny people their rights.

See this is what's odd is that all these rights are claimed, but no one ever goes around justifying them. See, I believe marriage is a right for all, but that's not because out of some bizarre need for equality in all things but because the state has no function in preventing consenting parties from forming contracts. That's all marriage is to me personally. A contract with someone you love to make sure certain legal and fiscal matters are cleared up. The rest is cultural and has little tangible substance.

So when you assert the right of humans to marry, what are you asserting exactly? That everyone deserves everything that everyone else has or are you merely arguing for the state to stop getting in the way of consenting adults and their right to form contracts with eachother.

Does someone deserve to be publicly shamed and fired for not believing in the right to free health care? What about someone who does believe in the right for free health care? Does it matter which one, or is it entirely acceptable practice just so long as you have morality on your side.

The problem with your line of logic, and the kind of knee jerk activism around it believes itself to be absolutely righteous and moral. To question, or believe something otherwise is tantamount to heresy, and the punishment is exile/blacklistening. It's almost as bad as Scientology and the suppressive person BS they put people through.

 

[nuttshell]

As I stated, I agree that the government should not have any say in the matter. But I also firmly believe that the government should not be able to issue marriage licenses at all...

I agree with all your points, including this one, however issuing marriage licenses is kind of important because it gives the state the means to control population figures (Imho it's still not very effective) - a couple in a marriage is more likely to have children.

 

[Thaluikhain]

some bizarre need for equality in all things

Why are equal rights bizarre?

So when you assert the right of humans to marry, what are you asserting exactly? That everyone deserves everything that everyone else has or are you merely arguing for the state to stop getting in the way of consenting adults and their right to form contracts with eachother.

Both, though more the former, if you are talking solely about rights.

Does someone deserve to be publicly shamed and fired for not believing in the right to free health care? What about someone who does believe in the right for free health care? Does it matter which one, or is it entirely acceptable practice just so long as you have morality on your side.

If they publicly support giving free health care for certain groups, but with holding it for others, yes, they most definitely deserve to be called up on it.

The problem with your line of logic, and the kind of knee jerk activism around it believes itself to be absolutely righteous and moral. To question, or believe something otherwise is tantamount to heresy, and the punishment is exile/blacklistening. It's almost as bad as Scientology and the suppressive person BS they put people through.

Well, excepting that neither myself nor the LGBT community has the power to exile or blacklist anyone. Eich is not going to be deported, and he got his job despite all this.

Secondly, are you saying that you think equality isn't a morally good thing? That we should discriminate against LGBT people for being LGBT?

 

[Loonyyy]

Snip

Or people just don't want to condemn a company - the vast majority of which is staffed by people who probably do support gay rights, and who only have this one source of income, that you're damaging by boycotting the company they work for or demanding they switch jobs (Not an easy thing in this market) all because of some shitty thing the CEO did nearly a decade ago.

Please, don't quote me, especially with the snippitude, if you can't be fucked to read my post. I'll quote myself.

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.)

I very much doubt that OkCupid has any interest in Firefox going away, or Mozilla shutting down. I very much doubt many people who disagree with the CEO want the company gone. And, if the majority of the staff support gay rights, I'm fairly sure they'd be rather unhappy about an inflated portion of the rewards of their effort going towards a hatemonger.

The point of protest is to institute change. The change here being towards making discriminating against gay people less acceptable.

That's my biggest problem here. If Mozilla was ran and staffed entirely by What's-His-Name, then I'd be rather fine with all this. It's the fact that people are advocating a course of action that probably won't affect the CEO in anyway, but probably will get innocent people fired, and then those same people turn around and call everyone who finds issue with this "insidious homophobes" as though this issue was so black-and-white, as though Mozilla is a hive-minded entity and everyone involved deserves harm because of the actions and thoughts of the one - yeah, I'mma call bullshit on that.

There is something bullshit here. Your entire post.

If people do start ditching Mozilla en masse because of OkCupid putting in a little note which can be bypassed quicker than a captcha, to the extent where Mozilla have to worry, then Mozilla knows where that came from. It's very clear.

This issue is very black and white. People are being asked not to support a bigot. Nicely. With less pressure stopping them from going on their merry way than it takes to post on this website. This is not about dozens of innocent Mozilla employees losing their jobs. That's a fiction you made up, to justify complaining that another group shouldn't have used their speech to advocate against electing bigots.

I said nothing of Mozilla being a hive mind, or to imply it. That's entirely rubbish. Hell, if you were a gay person working for Mozilla, or a decent human being working there, I'd imagine you'd be rather pissed that the new person dictated to get rich off your work is someone who believes that homosexuals DO NOT deserve the same rights as straights. And they're not going to lose their jobs over this(I'll eat my hat if they do). Your bullshit detector needs re-calibrating.

I mean, look around at all the people who complain about CEO's who will toss their employees into the fire before suffering a small burn themselves.

Except that who's he going to toss into the fire? I think you should learn how companies work. He's been given the job, and it can be taken away from him. The CEO is answerable to other interests. And if those interests believe he's in the way of their profit, as a group, then they'll likely do something about it

But suddenly it's okay to ritualistically sacrifice employees, because of something one guy did eight years ago?

Don't be histrionic. You know who's getting ritually sacrificed? Gay people in Uganda. Oh, sorry, they made that less severe. It's only life imprisonment now.

Even if some employees were potentially going to lose their jobs (Which is nothing but a malicious homophobic lie), boo fucking hoo. People lose their jobs all the fucking time, and a small number of people in one company really doesn't illicit much sympathy when we're talking about discriminating against around 10% of the population of the fucking planet.

Because that's the sort of hypocrisy that makes ME feel kinda sick.

Use a dictionary. You need to learn what hypocrisy means. I never espoused the views you attributed to me about your misunderstanding of how corporations work, and even if I had, I could justify those without contradiction with my views. There is no hypocrisy here. It's just a word you think adds weight to your argument.

Although, there is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in saying you've no problem with gay rights, and then having a problem with peaceful, legal attempts to get those rights. There's a lot of hypocrisy in criticizing CEO immorality and how they abuse their workforce for personal gain, as a justification for CEO morality and not criticizing CEO immorality.

So I understand why you're feeling sick. It's called Cognitive Dissonance. And there's enough in that garbage you directed at me to put a dozen people in their bed for a week.

 

[Loonyyy]

So? Just because homophobic piece of legislation was voted for, it doesn't stop being homophobic.

Can we please stop using that silly word now? Nobody here is afraid of gay people, and nobody suffers of a mental illness solely for having moral values. Thank you.

Can we please stop pretending that homophobia doesn't mean what every single english-speaking person in North America and Europe over the age of twelve knows what it means? Thanks.

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.

Homosexuality is not a term used to describe a mental illness, though.

Almost every fifth grader should have a reading level high enough to read numerous, numerous statements from groups such as, say, The American Psychological Association.

"Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being."

"Is homosexuality a mental disorder?

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

Lets see if you're smarter than a fifth grader!

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.

Relevant:

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - April 16th, 1962, Letter from Birmingham Jail

That is exactly the passage I was trying to evoke, I think I saw Thaluikin post it in a previous thread. Thankyou for posting that. It's a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. Hell, just look at the mess this thread turned into, where people are defending the CEO to not have OkCupid complain about him. Apparently speaking in favour of perfectly normal, marginalised people, is far more objectionable than being a sanctimonious bigot. Or the people who seem to think that making up insane stories about masses of lovely pro-gay Mozilla employees losing their jobs because of Mozilla's massive loss of profit (Never mind that they wouldn't complain about people not patronising them should Firefox be terrible *cough* Internet Explorer *cough* EA).

Or worse, the people complaining that some people who continue using OkCupid and Firefox will have to go through a couple more button clicks (THE HORROR), and as such, the protest is completely objectionable. Because we never put up with that. Oh hi Solvemedia. I didn't see you there.

 

[Lightknight]

No, they aren't. They are asking people not to use the product because they hired a mean who has taken actions to deny rights. Not for his beliefs.

"Taken actions"? You mean pursued legal means to support laws defining a term?

Then there's also the flipping of the scenario altogether. What about a dating site that asked someone not to use IE or Chrome when doing whatever because they hired a homosexual?

Which, of course, is not flipping the scenario, because being homosexual is not remotely the same as trying to deny people their rights.

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs. Other members of the LGBT community also try to infringe on peoples freedom of speech by actively trying to pass laws to make it illegal for people to say anything bad about homosexuality publicly.

Every group has its nutters. But there's a big difference between the nutters pursuing legal means to enact something and the nutters "actively" trying to do things themselves outside of the law. A guy who donates money to a legally acceptable cause he believes in is not the same as a group of assholes who show up to a gay wedding ceremony and bust things up. The former should always be protected in this country and the latter should always be responded to swiftly and perhaps violently. I'm sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose what peaceful and legal actions get to ruin a person's life.

Lastly, it's easy to cut off everything else I said in that post but it is highly relevant. These people don't see what they're doing as denying a person rights. Hell, many of them think civil unions offer them those same rights already and purely think that they're protecting the same license offered for a man and woman. They see changes to Marriage Licenses as a change on a term that isn't the government's place to change. They're both right and wrong. They're right that the government shouldn't have control over "marriage" as celebrated by religions and cultures. They're wrong that the Marriage Certificate is the same as that ceremony, it isn't. It's just become part of it in the last 150 years. We don't have clauses in our anti-discrimination laws that say, "But if their belief is clearly wrong...".

Either way, you've got to understand that these people aren't necessarily trying to hurt homosexuals. They're trying to protect something they find personal and beyond the laws of man. We make laws all the time that restrict rights to some to protect things for the many. But this is all a huge misunderstanding perpetuated by the government. Not as a conspiracy but just because the government isn't agile enough to respond to these kinds of problems quickly enough and what politician is going to run on the position of abolishing marriage licenses when so many people believe that term is synonymous with their own personal practice of marriage?

 

[Lightknight]

As I stated, I agree that the government should not have any say in the matter. But I also firmly believe that the government should not be able to issue marriage licenses at all...

I agree with all your points, including this one, however issuing marriage licenses is kind of important because it gives the state the means to control population figures (Imho it's still not very effective) - a couple in a marriage is more likely to have children.

If the government wants to control population figures, then they simply need to control the number of allowable children in households and see how much we fight them on it.

If you're talking about encouraging population increase (which is currently the goal of the US government), they are doing it via tax incentives at the moment.

Marriage licenses as population control would be the worst tool imaginable. However, keep in mind that I do still understand the need for licenses that offer a financial and familial union. The main complaint is over the appropriation of the term "marriage" rather than the license itself.

See this is what's odd is that all these rights are claimed, but no one ever goes around justifying them. See, I believe marriage is a right for all, but that's not because out of some bizarre need for equality in all things but because the state has no function in preventing consenting parties from forming contracts. That's all marriage is to me personally. A contract with someone you love to make sure certain legal and fiscal matters are cleared up. The rest is cultural and has little tangible substance.

Exactly.

So when you assert the right of humans to marry, what are you asserting exactly? That everyone deserves everything that everyone else has or are you merely arguing for the state to stop getting in the way of consenting adults and their right to form contracts with eachother.

Does someone deserve to be publicly shamed and fired for not believing in the right to free health care? What about someone who does believe in the right for free health care? Does it matter which one, or is it entirely acceptable practice just so long as you have morality on your side.

The problem with your line of logic, and the kind of knee jerk activism around it believes itself to be absolutely righteous and moral. To question, or believe something otherwise is tantamount to heresy, and the punishment is exile/blacklistening. It's almost as bad as Scientology and the suppressive person BS they put people through.

Your statement earlier about this being similar to McCarthy's red scare blacklisting is surprisingly apropos. I meant to state that but your post was pending an edit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose what peaceful and legal actions get to ruin a person's life.

That might be relevant if anyone's life was being ruined, instead of, say, a website asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site.

Also, why does this only apply to bigots? Why don't gay people get to live peacefully and legally?

Lastly, it's easy to cut off everything else I said in that post but it is highly relevant. These people don't see what they're doing as denying a person rights.

That isn't relevant. They can believe whatever the hell they like. Once they deny people's rights, there's a problem.

Bigots don't wake up thinking "This seems like a great day for bigotry". That doesn't meant they aren't bigots. Saying "I'm not homophobic, but..." doesn't stop someone from being homophobic.

 

[tangoprime]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

Of course the CEO isn't going to lose his job over this, but at any point in the future, if/when he's trying to get involved in a project, a simple google search will reveal controversy, and controversy = liability. So yes, they are attempting to publicly shame over a personal position, which by doing so would definitely affect future business.

 

[Lightknight]

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

The extent of the damage to firefox doesn't matter. They are trying to protest the fact that this man was hired at all. The implication being that firefox should not have hired this man based on the man's belief system and political positions.

If he did lose his job over it, the immediate punitive damages that would be paid out to him in the resultant discrimination lawsuit would set him for life. The point isn't what happens to him, the point is that OKC is trying to protest non-discriminatory hiring practices.

That might be relevant if anyone's life was being ruined, instead of, say, a website asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site.

Is their goal to have people like this not get jobs? They are protesting him having gotten a job.

Also, why does this only apply to bigots? Why don't gay people get to live peacefully and legally?

What are you talking about? This applies to everyone. Everyone should be able to get a job without being discriminated against on the basis of religion/beliefs, gender, political affiliations, orientation or race. Do you think that this guy is somehow exacting violence on gays or trying to make them illegal? I'm sorry, but the ability to marry doesn't make a group legal or illegal. If Civil Unions actually did their job and gave Gays exactly identical rights then the topic would be in name only. In some states they do work properly though.

That isn't relevant. They can believe whatever the hell they like. Once they deny people's rights, there's a problem.

He isn't "denying" people shit. He supported a law that people could vote for or against. Democracy isn't always going to be in your favor. You don't get to wipe people off the planet if they don't side with you.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

Of course the CEO isn't going to lose his job over this, but at any point in the future, if/when he's trying to get involved in a project, a simple google search will reveal controversy, and controversy = liability. So yes, they are attempting to publicly shame over a personal position, which by doing so would definitely affect future business.

Exactly. They are protesting the mere fact that this guy got hired. It is somewhat ironic to see anyone support discriminatory hiring practices on the side of the LGBT community.

 

[wolfyrik]

No there isn't reason for the state to treat differently, different types of love, except reasons of consent and demonstrable harm, which means that there's no reason to deny Same Sex Marriage.

As for love being relevent in front the state, of course it is, because modern marriage is an expression of love rather than a religous or social requirement (outside of it's abuse which occurrs already and wouldn't be affected by SSM). Sure you can decouple love from the litgation and tax side side but there's no reason to deny gay marriage there either because homosexuals can also raise families and do so successfully, though those offspring may be due to previous relationships, adoption or artifical means.

So you are seriously saying that because someone love (romantically) someone else... they are entitled to residence permit and tax breaks? In exactly the same way two or more people commit each other to procreate new members of the society?
The point is, proponents of SS"M" do not claim decoupling from economical benefits - they may be sinister, but certainly they are not stupid.

Hyperbole #1: well then, I suppose I could choose to be creepy and romantically love my son or nephew in order for him to get a share of my pension when I die. Go ahead and call me dangerous now - being both male there is not even the genetic risk associated with offspring of close relatives.

Offspring of previous relationships are not relevant in this context - adoption is relevant, and whoever adopts and raises a kid should indeed have access to the same benefits - but that's another subject. Of course, I maintain that a married couple is the preferable choice.

So now you "chose to be romantically involved"? So you're saying romantic love is a choice, rather than an emotional response? You still haven't answered the question of familial love being different than romantic love. Are they the same?

Hyperbole, by the way, is exaggeration, I'm not really sure it applies to your hypothetical situation, which is also fallacious btw. you ignore the fact that incest is illegal, depsite the fact this has been pointed out to you several times. Gay marriage in no equates to incest. Allowing one, does not allow the other. Incest remains illegal because of the significant harm it can cause. Changing the law to allow incest would create tremendous dangers, not least that children could be manipulated, threatened and abused into claiming that such a relationship is mutual. I'm astounded that you apparently can't understand this.

How are offspring through other relationships "not relevent"? They are still chldren, they are still living in the housholod, they are still being taken care of as a family unit. Are you suggesting that straight couples, who haven't had children together, but have children from other relationshuips, shouldn't be allowed to marry? Because that's the validation you're putting on marriage at this point. Furthermore, you admit that adoption, should count, but ignore artifical means, you also call adoption "another subject" but no, it isn't. It's still a family unit, with the same needs as other family units. This entirely invalidates your claim about "tax breaks" on it's own. As for married couples being the "preferable choice", you're right, which is why gay couples should have the right to become married.

You also called proponents of ssm "sinister". An interesting choice of words for someone who claims not to have a problem with LGBT and only against gay marriage for "financial reasons".

As for residency permits, why shouldn't people who love each other have the right to be together?

 

[wolfyrik]

It's a word that is used scientifically to denote a sickness - how more clear can it get?
Also it's not only being used for prejudice against gay people, but also for people, like me, that have the healthy moral value of seeing reproduction as a necessary imperative, and thus frowning of those that for reason of convenience decide not to have them - regardless of their sexual tendencies.

I believe that people that have the possibility of raising children, but choose not to, should feel guilty. So should I go around calling people "biophobic"?

Compeltely irrelevent, people can procreate without marriage, gay people can still care for children, increasing that child's survival and chance to procreate. which is exactly the purpose that homosexuality serves in nature.

What's more, allowing gay marriage would not affect the ability of straight people to marry OR procrete. In other words, allowing gay marraige would only serve to increase human survival by ensuring that more offspring have better care, and can survive to become parents themselves. In addition to the straight couples and their offspring. Entirely contrary to your claim that it would inhibit survival.


So the "monetary" argument is false, the "reproduction" argument is patently false.