OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[SonofaJohannes]

Hell no! I'm sticking with Firefox until I die. It's stuff like this that make people not take boycotting seriously.

 

[wolfyrik]

People don't care since they are interested in the product and not the guy's views. Seriously LGBT community is becoming more obnoxious keep this up and many people who support you will simply stop giving a damn.

So let me get this straight. They want me to switch browsers because 1 guy that works on the team; did something they don't like 'Not something wrong mind you, just something they didn't like'. Wow,. You'd thing the LBGT community would be a little more open minded and tolerant in regards to people of differing values and opinions...

So apparently the LGBT community is intolerant of views different from their own.
That's pretty damn ironic.

Wait, so because a single company with a vested issue has suggested soemthing you disagree with, the LGBT community are at fault?

Is OKDating owned by everysingle person who is LGBT? You're putting the blame in entirely the wrong place, most likely because of your own prejudice.

 

[Kroxile]

Yeah, I don't give a fuck about LGBT. In so saying, I state that I am of an indifferent opinion until shit like this gets thrown out. I DO NOT care about them one way or another.. but its the fact that they think they NEED me to care that pisses me off.

OT: Who cares what one guy thinks? He's allowed to stand on whatever side of the fence he wants and is neither good nor evil for his views, regardless of whatever liberal self-righteousness any of his opponents may have. And as a guy already said: the CEO's opinion doesn't turn your computer into a homosexual hate machine.

 

[Single Shot]

Did the COMPANY issue anti-gay actions or speeches? No.

Did the CEO use his position to spread his anti-gay views? No.

Are the company supporting the CEO's actions? No.

Are this specific group of LGBT members blaming the COMPANY for the actions of an INDIVIDUAL? Yes.

Is this going to get someone fired because neither side wants to have a reasonable debate? Probably.

Should someone be fired for personal beliefs? Hell no!

Is this going to strengthen anti-gay views by making the entire group look like petty professional complainers? Quite likely.

Is this all just a publicity stunt for another company that probably doesn't care about anything but the bottom line and is clearly going to gain from the stunt? Definitely.

 

[james.sponge]

People don't care since they are interested in the product and not the guy's views. Seriously LGBT community is becoming more obnoxious keep this up and many people who support you will simply stop giving a damn.

So let me get this straight. They want me to switch browsers because 1 guy that works on the team; did something they don't like 'Not something wrong mind you, just something they didn't like'. Wow,. You'd thing the LBGT community would be a little more open minded and tolerant in regards to people of differing values and opinions...

So apparently the LGBT community is intolerant of views different from their own.
That's pretty damn ironic.

Wait, so because a single company with a vested issue has suggested soemthing you disagree with, the LGBT community are at fault?

Is OKDating owned by everysingle person who is LGBT? You're putting the blame in entirely the wrong place, most likely because of your own prejudice.

Believe it or not things like this is what usually people will remember, sure the site decided to act on behalf of a certain group of people and they do not represent but bystanders do not care about that. It would sensible and rational for LGBT community - and not the whole community a spokesperson perhaps? - to simply remind them not to dabble in activism in such intrusive way because it does not help anyone.

 

[Tiamat666]

I have mostly liberal views and I think everyone should be able to live as they see fit. I have to wonder though why it's so important for homosexuals to marry. Historically, marriage is this religious-cultural thing in which man and woman make a bond for life. As far as I know both the religious and the cultural background reject homosexuality, so why would you want to be a part of that ritual, as a homosexual? Isn't this like an atheist demanding to be allowed to enter a church to meditate?

I suppose there are also real material benefits involved in being married, such as lower tax rate and whatnot. This is why people should be allowed to engage in a marriage-like partnership and receive the same benefits. Just don't call it marriage and keep religion out of it, and maybe this way both sides can be happy.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

I have mostly liberal views and I think everyone should be able to live as they see fit. I have to wonder though why it's so important for homosexuals to marry. Historically, marriage is this religious-cultural thing in which man and woman make a bond for life. As far as I know both the religious and the cultural background reject homosexuality, so why would you want to be a part of that ritual, as a homosexual? Isn't this like an atheist demanding to be allowed to enter a church to meditate?

I suppose there are also real material benefits involved in being married, such as lower tax rate and whatnot. This is why people should be allowed to engage in a marriage-like partnership and receive the same benefits. Just don't call it marriage and keep religion out of it, and maybe this way both sides can be happy.

Close enough, but you are right - the real heart of the questions is devising a truly egalitarian way for rights such as tax breaks.

Certainly, just because someone love someone and that person returns the feeling, he/she shouldn't be entitled to any taxpayers' dough. Because if that was the case, then yeah, I would totally marry my son just to relieve him of any heritage shenanigans.

Otherwise, you would grant additional rights to two citizens simply (I guess) out of their mutual affection, but you are denying the same rights to more than two people in the same situation. Or to blood relatives.

I've said that before, but if two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry. No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I've often advocated separation of work and personal life, and this issue is no different. He can think whatever he wants, none of his views have affected my browser experience. But at the same time, if a site wants to protest that, fair enough, it's their prerogative and good on them for trying to do something. I just think people should be allowed to support whatever causes they like without that being a barrier to their career.

 

[Queen Michael]

...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.

 

[ISeeColours]

...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.

just because some people don't support the LGBT group with every little thing that upsets them doesn't mean you don't care.

it's things like this that make me feel like if you don't support one side then you must support the other.

 

[happy_turtle]

Anyone else spotting the hypocrisy here with the Hobby Craft issue? Hobby Craft are in court wrongfully stating that companies can have religious views, those of the owners, and are trying to stop their employees from obtaining things like birth control via healthcare or pension rights for same-sex partners.

Now they correctly say this is wrong, and yet with the same breath say that a company (Mozilla) DOES have the same religious view as it's CEO. Am I missing something here?

 

[wolfyrik]

People don't care since they are interested in the product and not the guy's views. Seriously LGBT community is becoming more obnoxious keep this up and many people who support you will simply stop giving a damn.

So let me get this straight. They want me to switch browsers because 1 guy that works on the team; did something they don't like 'Not something wrong mind you, just something they didn't like'. Wow,. You'd thing the LBGT community would be a little more open minded and tolerant in regards to people of differing values and opinions...

So apparently the LGBT community is intolerant of views different from their own.
That's pretty damn ironic.

Wait, so because a single company with a vested issue has suggested soemthing you disagree with, the LGBT community are at fault?

Is OKDating owned by everysingle person who is LGBT? You're putting the blame in entirely the wrong place, most likely because of your own prejudice.

Believe it or not things like this is what usually people will remember, sure the site decided to act on behalf of a certain group of people and they do not represent but bystanders do not care about that. It would sensible and rational for LGBT community - and not the whole community a spokesperson perhaps? - to simply remind them not to dabble in activism in such intrusive way because it does not help anyone.

So the entirity of the LGBT community have a responsibility to police any and all websites that may affect them, just to make sure that YOU don't blame them as a whole for the actions of a third party?

And you think that the entire LGBT community should have a spokesperson?
Does the entire Heterosexual community have a spokesperson? Who is this person? I'd like to meet them, afterall if they represent me, I want to make sure that they're suitable.
I'm astounded and baffled at the possible reasoning you must have used to come to the conclusion that a single person could represent every gay man, woman, bisexual and transgender person that lives, today.

You took it on yourself to misunderstand or mistate what was happening here. You took it on yourself to blame every LBGT person on the planet for this proposed boycott, you and the others I quoted would have done that regardless of the frankly ludicrous idea that a "spokesperson" say something about it.

Do women have to have a spokesperson to make sure they're not discriminated against when Anita Sarkeesian makes another asinine video?

No, the LGBT community doesn't owe you or anyone else an explanation for why YOU decided to lay blame at the wrong feet. That's entirely your fault and they absolutely do not need to elect a spokesperson to speak out against things you disagree with, just so you don't have a go at them instead of the real protagonist. Maybe you should try judging a situation with reason, instead of just having a go at who you immediately WANT to blame.

 

[wolfyrik]

I have mostly liberal views and I think everyone should be able to live as they see fit. I have to wonder though why it's so important for homosexuals to marry. Historically, marriage is this religious-cultural thing in which man and woman make a bond for life. As far as I know both the religious and the cultural background reject homosexuality, so why would you want to be a part of that ritual, as a homosexual? Isn't this like an atheist demanding to be allowed to enter a church to meditate?

I suppose there are also real material benefits involved in being married, such as lower tax rate and whatnot. This is why people should be allowed to engage in a marriage-like partnership and receive the same benefits. Just don't call it marriage and keep religion out of it, and maybe this way both sides can be happy.

Close enough, but you are right - the real heart of the questions is devising a truly egalitarian way for rights such as tax breaks.

Certainly, just because someone love someone and that person returns the feeling, he/she shouldn't be entitled to any taxpayers' dough. Because if that was the case, then yeah, I would totally marry my son just to relieve him of any heritage shenanigans.

Otherwise, you would grant additional rights to two citizens simply (I guess) out of their mutual affection, but you are denying the same rights to more than two people in the same situation. Or to blood relatives.

I've said that before, but if two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry. No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love.

There's a vast difference between allowing marriage between blood realtives and allowing two people of the same gender to marry. That you'd even compare the two is asonishing and deeply worrying.
If you can't tell the difference between familial love and the romantic love which inspires marriage, then you have serious problems and I'd probably advise the state to remove any children from your care as you are clearly a danger to your own relatives.

In some cultures, several people can engage in polygamous marriage, what's your point?

As for biological reproduction, if a womam and a man love each other, but one or both is infertile, or they dimply don't want to have children, then they should be prevented from marrying? Because that is bascially what your argument boils down to.

Oh and inyour post which was cut-off, you accused someone of being biophobic, what exactly do you think that means? Biophobia is the fear of living things, it has nothing to do with this situation.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

There's a vast difference between allowing marriage between blood realtives and allowing two people of the same gender to marry. That you'd even compare the two is asonishing and deeply worrying.
If you can't tell the difference between familial love and the romantic love which inspires marriage, then you have serious problems and I'd probably advise the state to remove any children from your care as you are clearly a danger to your own relatives.

In some cultures, several people can engage in polygamous marriage, what's your point?

As for biological reproduction, if a womam and a man love each other, but one or both is infertile, or they dimply don't want to have children, then they should be prevented from marrying? Because that is bascially what your argument boils down to.

The point is in the reason why you are granting additional rights. If it's because of "love", who are you to determine what love is good enough?

You either rethink the reason why we give those rights for, or we grant them for *everyone*.

 

[Verlander]

Open the browser wars!

The people bitchin' and moanin' are no doubt the first who would rush to say "vote with your wallet!" whenever social legislation is introduced. So, by continuing to use the browser, you are condoning the appointment. Way to go guys, because the "gamer" community isn't already seen as intolerant enough..

 

[wolfyrik]

There's a vast difference between allowing marriage between blood realtives and allowing two people of the same gender to marry. That you'd even compare the two is asonishing and deeply worrying.
If you can't tell the difference between familial love and the romantic love which inspires marriage, then you have serious problems and I'd probably advise the state to remove any children from your care as you are clearly a danger to your own relatives.

In some cultures, several people can engage in polygamous marriage, what's your point?

As for biological reproduction, if a womam and a man love each other, but one or both is infertile, or they dimply don't want to have children, then they should be prevented from marrying? Because that is bascially what your argument boils down to.

The point is in the reason why you are granting additional rights. If it's because of "love", who are you to determine what love is good enough?

You either rethink the reason why we give those rights for, or we grant them for *everyone*.

Like the blog post you linked, you are committing a fallacy of false equivocation and further demonstrating the fact that you are a danger to your children.
There are laws about Incest and paedophilia for a good reason, these are things which cause demonstrable harm in society, to the individuals involved and any children born of them. They cause damage mentally and physically and if you can't understand that, then you are very ill indeed.

Allowing homosexual marriage does no such thing. There is no demonstrable harm against anyone. Sure it affects cowards and bigots, by denying them one more means by which they can discrimate against a minority, but that's hardly harmful and infact is beneficial to society as a whole.

This whole "if you allow one then allow them all" argument is ridiculous at best, not least because it is hypocritical and ignores every principal of reason and law.

 

[L3D]

While Eich is best known for his work on Mozilla and Java

Javascript, not Java. Different things.

 

[james.sponge]

People don't care since they are interested in the product and not the guy's views. Seriously LGBT community is becoming more obnoxious keep this up and many people who support you will simply stop giving a damn.

So let me get this straight. They want me to switch browsers because 1 guy that works on the team; did something they don't like 'Not something wrong mind you, just something they didn't like'. Wow,. You'd thing the LBGT community would be a little more open minded and tolerant in regards to people of differing values and opinions...

So apparently the LGBT community is intolerant of views different from their own.
That's pretty damn ironic.

Wait, so because a single company with a vested issue has suggested soemthing you disagree with, the LGBT community are at fault?

Is OKDating owned by everysingle person who is LGBT? You're putting the blame in entirely the wrong place, most likely because of your own prejudice.

Believe it or not things like this is what usually people will remember, sure the site decided to act on behalf of a certain group of people and they do not represent but bystanders do not care about that. It would sensible and rational for LGBT community - and not the whole community a spokesperson perhaps? - to simply remind them not to dabble in activism in such intrusive way because it does not help anyone.

So the entirity of the LGBT community have a responsibility to police any and all websites that may affect them, just to make sure that YOU don't blame them as a whole for the actions of a third party?

And you think that the entire LGBT community should have a spokesperson?
Does the entire Heterosexual community have a spokesperson? Who is this person? I'd like to meet them, afterall if they represent me, I want to make sure that they're suitable.
I'm astounded and baffled at the possible reasoning you must have used to come to the conclusion that a single person could represent every gay man, woman, bisexual and transgender person that lives, today.

You took it on yourself to misunderstand or mistate what was happening here. You took it on yourself to blame every LBGT person on the planet for this proposed boycott, you and the others I quoted would have done that regardless of the frankly ludicrous idea that a "spokesperson" say something about it.

Do women have to have a spokesperson to make sure they're not discriminated against when Anita Sarkeesian makes another asinine video?

No, the LGBT community doesn't owe you or anyone else an explanation for why YOU decided to lay blame at the wrong feet. That's entirely your fault and they absolutely do not need to elect a spokesperson to speak out against things you disagree with, just so you don't have a go at them instead of the real protagonist. Maybe you should try judging a situation with reason, instead of just having a go at who you immediately WANT to blame.

Jesus calm down, simply saying somebody should have reminded them (site owners) they shouldn't act on behalf of the entire group of people... it's that simple, really...