OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[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...

 

[Fanghawk]

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

Javascript, not Java. Different things.

My bad. Fixed.

 

[Ekit]

Aren't OKCupid shoving their political agenda in the face of their users much more than Firefox right now?

I don't like the way the LGBT movement is morphing into this hate machine where any dissentors needs to be sought out and publicly shamed.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

A person IS despicable if they are hateful bigots. Keep up. It's cool, we don't expect prop 8 supporters to be the fastest of the bunch.

Except that the only bigots, here, are those that think that opposition of same-sex "marriage" is despicable.
Reality check: it's a perfectly rational and moral one, and arguably the most liberal.

 

[Verlander]

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.

Yup, it's all about consent. It's illegal to marry a man and woman if it's non consensual. Children are deemed unable to give consent, as are animals. Should Poly people be allowed to marry? Sure, why not. Should gay people? Definitely. It's a really really really simple right, and the people that oppose it don't do so because they "don't understand", but rather because they want to retain their own privilege at the cost of others. Or, to put it another way, are hateful bigots who are polluting the gene pool.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

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.

I stopped reading here. Thank you for proving my point with your intolerance.

 

[wolfyrik]

Proposition 8 was despicable- as is anyone who supported it.
And this guy didn't just support it internally, it wasn't just a part of him- he took action, and supported it with his wallet.

So, fuck him. You're allowed to believe whatever the fuck you want, but the second you're actively helping efforts to hurt innocent people, you become indefensible.

NO, someone is NOT despicable because he holds views different from yours - and pushing to retain marriage as something which is inherently related to procreation does NOT hurt innocent people.

This specific opinion of yours is indefensible, not otherwise - Mozilla's CEO should be proud of his support for Prop8.

Absolute nonsense. Marriage is not "inherently related to procreation" now or ever. Marriage has existed in many cultures long before christianity came about. Sure there are sections in modern law relating to divorce but I challange you to demonstrate case law where a couple has been denied marriage or forced to divorce against their will on the ground of infertility and that act has been upheld.

Just one.

As for not being despicable for holding views which are different, you're right. They ARE despicable however, when those views involve enacting in law, means by which to discriminate against innocent people. You are entitled to baseless hate all you want, but you are not entitled to put your baseless hate into law, thereby curbing the rights of innocent minorities. That IS a despicable act and it absolutely contravines every moral law we have, flying in the face of Constitution and morality.

 

[Verlander]

A person IS despicable if they are hateful bigots. Keep up. It's cool, we don't expect prop 8 supporters to be the fastest of the bunch.

Except that the only bigots, here, are those that think that opposition of same-sex "marriage" is despicable.
Reality check: it's a perfectly rational and moral one, and arguably the most liberal.

Treating someone differently based on an arbitrary fact about them (and not an action) is despicable. It's a motivation behind nearly every war and social movement since the war of independence.

Don't pretend like there is a legitimate reason behind "one man, one woman" marriage, other than direct discrimination. Marriage only existed in the first place to "own" women. We've moved on, and continue to progress as a people, and it's always for the better.

 

[wolfyrik]

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.

I stopped reading here. Thank you for proving my point with your intolerance.

Ad hominem, false equivocation. You're the one who claimed there is no difference between familial love and marriage love. Ergo, you're a danger to your children. That's a challenge, not intolerence.

Do you admit that there is a difference between the romantic love which inspires marriage and the love that a family member has for another? Yes or no?

 

[RJ 17]

When you boycott a company based purely upon the personal beliefs of the person in charge, I believe you're being hypocritical. You're discriminating against the company purely because the person in charge holds a different belief than yours. You're essentially using the exact same argument that the Bush administration used for those people protesting the war: "If you're not totally in support of this war, you might as well be rooting for the terrorists." Sorry, I didn't realize that I was no longer allowed to have a personal opinion. Just because someone disagrees with boycotting a company based on the CEO's personal beliefs does not mean they agree with or condone said beliefs. Just because I'm not out on the streets demanding gay-rights doesn't mean I believe that gays shouldn't have rights.

Bush was RIGHT! By not supporting the Wars promoted by a democratic leader you are fundamentally going against the concept of democracy and the nation. And that is FINE! You do not have to support the state as it is, much like you do not have to support a company as it is, but at the same time support the country/company as it could be. There is no hypocrisy here. The argument that you can go against the executive+congress+senate+supreme court+ by extension the American people and their votes, and say that you support the country is silly, you support the concept of the country without the very democratic system that is fundamentally it's nervous system and brain. America without the system is a meaningless empty concept that you can put whatever ideas you want into. The "No real Scotsmen" fallacy comes into play here, we can just call it "that's not really America"

Again though, it is fine to be against your country when you think it is doing wrong. Too many of us are obsessed with the idea that you must be patriotic at all times to the point where we turn our opposition and sedition into patriotism when it's really not. And I say this as someone who is not even American, as we do it here in Israel all the time and I saw similar things in Canada when I lived there. My favourite argument was "Harper is ruining the country" when Harper was voted more then enough times into power and therefore represents the very will of the country.

So just because someone's democratically elected you suddenly have to change your views to support them? What about all the people that didn't vote for Bush? What about all the people who voted members into congress but never wanted to go to war? Are they supposed to just shrug their shoulders and be like "Well they won the fair, democratic elections so I guess that means that I have to change my opinions to align with theirs"? I disagree with Obama and everything he stands for, but I'm not out there hoping something bad happens to him. I'm not going to start a rebellion against my country because I disagree with the president and congress. Indeed, they all won fair democratic elections, so I intend to voice my disapproval of the democratic party come November when it's election time.

 

[DataSnake]

I'm going to change a few key words in a couple posts, to show what they would have looked like 70 years ago:

Aren't Dr. King and Rosa Parks shoving their political aenda in the face of he users much more than the Montgomery Transit Authority right now?

I don't like the way the civil rights movement is morphing into a radical hate group where any dissentors needs to be sought out and publicly shamed.

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

See what I mean? When it comes to equal rights, if you just want the minorities to stop pestering you about how they're being treated, you're part of the problem.

 

[Verlander]

Proposition 8 was despicable- as is anyone who supported it.
And this guy didn't just support it internally, it wasn't just a part of him- he took action, and supported it with his wallet.

So, fuck him. You're allowed to believe whatever the fuck you want, but the second you're actively helping efforts to hurt innocent people, you become indefensible.

NO, someone is NOT despicable because he holds views different from yours - and pushing to retain marriage as something which is inherently related to procreation does NOT hurt innocent people.

This specific opinion of yours is indefensible, not otherwise - Mozilla's CEO should be proud of his support for Prop8.

Absolute nonsense. Marriage is not "inherently related to procreation" now or ever. Marriage has existed in many cultures long before christianity came about. Sure there are sections in modern law relating to divorce but I challange you to demonstrate case law where a couple has been denied marriage or forced to divorce against their will on the ground of infertility and that act has been upheld.

Just one.

As for not being despicable for holding views which are different, you're right. They ARE despicable however, when those views involve enacting in law, means by which to discriminate against innocent people. You are entitled to baseless hate all you want, but you are not entitled to put your baseless hate into law, thereby curbing the rights of innocent minorities. That IS a despicable act and it absolutely contravines every moral law we have, flying in the face of Constitution and morality.

Correct, marriage came with the advent of agriculture, when we stopped being "hunter, gatherer" types, and started to accumulate material wealth. Marriage is a way of owning a woman, and all marital customs clearly point to that. It's the same reason society is largely monogamous - people began to own possessions, and so wanted to pass them on to their children. Therefore they wanted to make sure that any children their wives bore were their own. This is also why so many people cheat - genetically, we aren't monogamous. The evolution of the penis shows that. Anyway, getting a bit sciencey on a social topic...

 

[O maestre]

He is not even a policy maker what gives? for all I know there are white supremacists working at Microsoft or Apple or google working along side a homosexual. That doesn't mean that the company is racist or gay or both.

I think this is PC control getting out of hand. It is not like Firefox has an official anti gay policy requiring all employees to be white male and straight

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Except that the only bigots, here, are those that think that opposition of same-sex "marriage" is despicable.
Reality check: it's a perfectly rational and moral one, and arguably the most liberal.

Treating someone differently based on an arbitrary fact about them (and not an action) is despicable. It's a motivation behind nearly every war and social movement since the war of independence.

Don't pretend like there is a legitimate reason behind "one man, one woman" marriage, other than direct discrimination. Marriage only existed in the first place to "own" women. We've moved on, and continue to progress as a people, and it's always for the better.

Except that the point here is not sexual orientation - is about granting additional rights to people because of... what exactly? Having children, or trying to is a perfectly rational reason; loving each other, not so much.

I am not interested in this or that definition of "marriage" - it changed over history, although always having been about procreation in pretty much all cultures and countries; what I DO care about is that the State treats all citizens equally, and giving additional rights simply because of mutual affection, but ONLY if it involves just two people, is completely illiberal.

 

[joshuaayt]

Proposition 8 was despicable- as is anyone who supported it.
And this guy didn't just support it internally, it wasn't just a part of him- he took action, and supported it with his wallet.

So, fuck him. You're allowed to believe whatever the fuck you want, but the second you're actively helping efforts to hurt innocent people, you become indefensible.

NO, someone is NOT despicable because he holds views different from yours - and pushing to retain marriage as something which is inherently related to procreation does NOT hurt innocent people.

This specific opinion of yours is indefensible, not otherwise - Mozilla's CEO should be proud of his support for Prop8.

Oh, is it? My opinion is indefensible? Because it differs from yours?
See the problem here? We can go around and around in circles for hours. Key difference between the differing views us two have, and the differing views I have with Brendan Eich, is I know he actively worked against marriage equality.
Pushing to stop others from getting married doesn't hurt anyone? Lets go and tell that to all the gay whiners trying to get married, I bet they'll be thrilled to hear that they haven't been hurt.