OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Vareoth]

As long as his personal beliefs don't have a negative impact on the policy of the company itself, I believe it might be a bit of an overreaction to boycott the entire company. He is but one man amongst many others working at Mozilla. However, everyone is allowed to make this decision for his or herself without any explanation given. And I am not arrogant enough to pass judgement on those people.

I was going to comment further on statements made by others on this topic but I decided against it because it would take way to long. Specifically statements about why homosexual people would even need marriage as a right, and the link between marriage and religion. Just know that as a gay man an an intelligent humanistic being I can decide for myself what equalities I need, thank you very much. And marriage is only a religious thing since about 1000 years.

I'm going to run away now. Please do try to remain pleasant to one another, would you kindly?

 

[ckam]

Well, until I see Mozilla push homophobic ads in my face or whatever, I'll just stick with not caring. People's personal irrelevant feelings shouldn't be brought into a business, and I'm assuming they'll stick by that.

 

[DrOswald]

And marriage is only a religious thing since about 1000 years.

Even if marriage as an important part of religion is only 1000 years old, that is a very long time. Plenty of time for marriage to become inextricably intertwined with religion. It is impossible to remove the marriage aspect of many religions without invalidating large portions of the core doctrine of those religions.

Now, that said, I support same sex marriage. But I find the whole "marriage was originally religious!" "No it wasn't!" back and forth to be entirely unproductive. Whatever the case may have been in the past marriage is both a religious and state institution at this point. We have to deal with that fact, and seeing who can shout "First!" the loudest solves nothing.

 

[Lightknight]

Do you advocate hiring practices that discriminate based on belief?

If they're the public face of my company, 24/7, 365, then yes, I probably would, especially if they seem unwilling to leave their political opinions in only the realm of the voting booth and their own home.

Why would a public facing company be excluded from basic discrimination laws? 60 years ago this would be a discussion on boycotting a company for hiring a black man because his looks don't conform to the norm or a Muslim because their religion isn't part of the norm. This is still intolerance in action.

Worth noting, what Eich did isn't just belief - its an action. He made a public donation under his name, a political action. Not something you want the head of your apolitical organization to be known for if you're a stockholder or a board member.

So then it's ok if you believe but not ok if you put your money where your mouth is? Or it's not ok to support certain political positions? Even if you don't come to terms with what I'm saying, I hope you see how incredibly sketchy this mentality is for a society built on freedoms that specifically protect these kinds of things from organizations that would seek to silence these people. This is a real "First they came for..." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...] scenario here. What's more is that the political parties against these things have tied the laws directly to faiths. Horribly misleading and easy to catch religious minded individuals who ignorantly think that the government has the ability to tie the hands of their ministers or some such nonsense. But that goes back to the misappropriation of terms which you agree is an issue below. Right or wrong, Eich likely believes he's protecting a religious institution and doesn't see what he's doing as oppressing anyone and I believe that this is a misconception that the government perpetuates because that IS what the original license was intended to do.

Right now, the government is making laws on a term called "marriage" and this is confusing large groups of people into thinking that the government is legislating the religious and cultural practice of marriage. If nothing else, the license's name should be changed to make it less controversial.

I would actually be completely okay with this, assuming that its applied to all types of relationships equally, and provides particularly legal benefits that exist under marriage laws, ie the ability to see your spouse when they're in the emergency room as well as automatic deferment of child guardianship

Right, if the term is changed then no one would obtain a marriage license. Everyone would obtain whatever replaced it. But yes, that is why I specified financial and familial rights as part of this other thing in the paragraph immediately above the one you quoted of me.

If the biological parent dies, the children might be ripped away from their non-biological parent - something straight couples don't have to deal with because they're protected under the law for this sort of thing.

Varies from state to state. Some states are specifically courting homosexual adoptions. But yeah, it's odd that this sort of thing isn't stamped down. From what I've heard though, this is very rare now and success of preventing the child from returning home is almost null. Almost being unacceptable, of course. But if this is a bigger (more pervasive, I mean) problem than I'm aware of it should certainly be cracked down on even harder.

Currently denied to even most gay couples under civil union laws, let alone those who can't even get a civil union.

This one has always infuriated me. I personally think the hospitals overstep their place in denying it. I'd like to see some individual lawsuits succeed here in intimidating hospitals from discrimination.

 

[Vareoth]

And marriage is only a religious thing since about 1000 years.

Even if marriage as an important part of religion is only 1000 years old, that is a very long time. Plenty of time for marriage to become inextricably intertwined with religion. It is impossible to remove the marriage aspect of many religions without invalidating large portions of the core doctrine of those religions.

Now, that said, I support same sex marriage. But I find the whole "marriage was originally religious!" "No it wasn't!" back and forth to be entirely unproductive. Whatever the case may have been in the past marriage is both a religious and state institution at this point. We have to deal with that fact, and seeing who can shout "First!" the loudest solves nothing.

I understand. My point was mostly to state that the inclusion of marriage into religion is a human afterthought, instead of some "god given fact". It is (or should be) completely inconsequential to this discussion however.

And a thousand years seem so small when you look at the big picture. But that is besides the point.

 

[DrOswald]

Right or wrong, Eich likely believes he's protecting a religious institution and doesn't see what he's doing as oppressing anyone and I believe that this is a misconception that the government perpetuates because that IS what the original license was intended to do.

I live in a highly conservative area of the country and I know many people who have political views opposed to same sex marriage. I would like to point out that the primary concern is not legal oppression but social oppression. And I have to admit they have a point. Once a group has enough influence they can stamp out a group that they think is opposed to them. The LGBT community doesn't need to force legal persecution if they can just call for the head of any random dissenter and get it. The idea is simple: "If we don't fight for our beliefs now the LGBT will use the social power they gain to destroy anyone they think is against them. It is us or them."

And now the LGBT community is calling for the head of a dissenter who's only crime was a modest donation to an opposing political stance 6 years ago.

Once again, I am for same sex marriage. But at this point it is hard to say these conservative fears are anything but justified.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Overpopulation, extreme risk to the mother and/or child, Lack of resources to properly care for such children, children that are currently without parents, hello, any of that ring a bell?

I can't help but wonder why people always bring the subject of overpopulation, even when I pre-emptively used the term "responsibly". Yes, overpopulation is an issue - that doesn't mean that having children is less resource-intensive or less necessary, just that we should not make as many as in the past.

As a side note, the West is demographically in decline. For those of us who care about preserving our culture and civilization, we shouldn't make less just because other parts of the world procreate irresponsibly and are willing to migrate - and I speak as an immigrant myself.

Can you describe a long, well-documented history of heterosexual people being put in mental instutitions, physically and chemically castrated, being frequent victims of hate crimes among people because they against same-sex marriage?

Answer: No, because it doesn't exist.

Agreed, but I don't see how this makes using a word inappropriately appropriate.

Considering the fact that your belief that people who can have childre should isn't very rational or considerate for the well-being of others, you shouldn't. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Well if people can make up new meaning for words, I guess I can also play to make them up!

 

[chronobreak]

It's pretty lame people would attack him for his sincerely held convictions, but just as people can boycott Firefox, others can lead new customers to it. I just showed my Dad how to use it and put it on his computer today. Anyone that thinks taking potshots at the guy is going to get what you want should rethink their plans, because there are a whole lot of people who love to mobilize in cases like this to stand up for what they believe.

 

[The Material Sheep]

If the reason you say "I don't want anything to do with this" is that the CEO did something that hurt you, then it is revenge.

Why? Why can't someone not want anything to do with him or people that would hire him?

Because it's petty and his "bigotry" likely isn't so much hate as a misguided ignorance of the opposition. Even if he is just a fundamentalist douche if he doesn't bring it into his job respect his professionalism. Out side of politics his personal beliefs are irrelevant if he doesn't bring the into the decisions he's making.

Until I see him enacting company policy towards an anti lgbt side of things I won't care about fire Fox hiring him.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

That's a really unhealthy attitude. The human population is rapidly expanding to the point where we may no longer be able to sustain ourselves. So the idea that everyone should all reproduce alot is silly at best and harmful to the environment in the long run at worst. And besides, children are obnoxious and disgusting. We need less of them.

Hi Fsyco,

please see my reply above about the issue of sustainability (a worry that I share with you).

I get the impression that anyone who holds a really child-centric worldview has had their mind warped by parenthood. Just because you made an extremely poor choice you have to live with for at least 18 years (less if you get lucky), everyone else should make that same choice and deal with it. You stepped in a giant cow turd, and now are demanding everyone else step in the cow turd as a moral obligation to society.

Yes, perhaps my mind changed after becoming a father; and indeed as a videogamer and programmer this takes a huge toll on my own time, but while taxing parenthood is ultimately necessary - not just for the personal benefits I may or may not have when old, but also for a sense of duty toward my parents, toward my ancestors, toward all my society.
Our grandparents who fought totalitarism didn't give their blood in order for us to waste our life in nihilism.

To bring it closer on topic, homosexuality is perfectly natural and observed in plenty of other animals. Maybe the rise in gay couples and such is a natural response to our increasing overpopulation problem, like the declining fertility rate?

This is another "standard" argument that come up in those debates; the obvious retort is that there are many different behaviors observed in animals, including cannibalism of one's own young; moral of the story is, just because animals do something that doesn't make it automatically worthy of imitation.

 

[Vegosiux]

Our grandparents who fought totalitarism didn't give their blood in order for us to waste our life in nihilism.

I think they, from a certain point of view, did. They fought so that the future generations can live in a free world, living their lives as they see fit - if some choose to live by nihilism, so be it.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

I think they, from a certain point of view, did. They fought so that the future generations can live in a free world, living their lives as they see fit - if some choose to live by nihilism, so be it.

In a way, you are right.
But living a life where their own emotional/sexual satisfaction is more important than contributing to renovate society? I wouldn't think so.

 

[JazzJack2]

I think they, from a certain point of view, did. They fought so that the future generations can live in a free world, living their lives as they see fit - if some choose to live by nihilism, so be it.

In a way, you are right.
But living a life where their own emotional/sexual satisfaction is more important than contributing to renovate society? I wouldn't think so.

A truly functioning society is one that places individual autonomy at the forefront, these utopian ideals that involve sacrificing your own autonomy to renovate society are inherently self-contradictory ideals, giving up your own autonomy will only degrade society not renovate it.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I think they, from a certain point of view,sovereign gn [/i]. They fought so that the future generations can live in a free world, living their lives as they see fit - if some choose to live by nihilism, so be it.

In a way, you are right.
But living a life where their own emotional/sexual satisfaction is more important than contributing to renovate society? I wouldn't think so.

Well that's the funny thing about freedom isn't it. I also doubt those who came before us would be so inwardly focused as to deny a man' or woman's individual sovereignty for the sake of "civic duty" to reproduce. The idea that the citizen is a resource of the state to be used as seen fit is a product of the same ideology that our grand parents fought against. Individuals deserve the right to form contracts with whomever they've wish and the state's only roll in that is to act as an impartial moderator, not a task master to foster us in a direction deemed fit by an increasingly smaller percentage of the populace.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Here's the (final) solution: Get Waterfox. It's practically the same app as firefox but not by Mozilla. You can't lose and don't have to put up with any of this political nonsense either.

 

[Lightknight]

Homophobia is not a medical term. It never has been. Its not used to describe a medical condition. The word is used to describe undue prejudice against a group of people, non-heterosexuals specifically.

You mean you don't scream or hyperventilate uncontrollably every time you come across a guy that likes other dudes? I personally stand on a chair and squeak in terror. [/joke]

 

[Taunta]

Great, so people shouldn't be hired based on their personal beliefs. Glad to know that that tolerance is a one way street. Not that I give two shits east who marries who. I just consider it an epic double standard to demand that people who hold a different belief, even controversial ones, should be un-hire-able and shrivel up and die.

Now, if his personal beliefs flooded into the way the company functions? That's quite another thing.

I'm not sure where you're seeing anyone advocate for his removal. Okcupid just politely informed you in case that sort of thing is important to you. People are allowed to continue to use a product regardless of the CEOs personal beliefs, just as people are allowed to choose not to support people who they disagree with. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

Oh, the old "tolerate the intolerant" adage. "Disapproving of someone for something they have no control over" and "disapproving of someone for having an entirely optional opinion and actively supporting legislation that denies a group of people their civil rights" are not equal.

 

[The Material Sheep]

[quote ote of the CEO then I'm curious what you think the intent of the mention was. . Oote="Lightknight" post="7.846193.20863619"]Great, so people shouldbut be hired based on their personal beliefs. Glad to know that that tolerance is a one way street. Not that I give two shits east who marries who. I just consider it an epic double standard to demand that people who hold a different belief, even controversial ones, should be un-hire-able and shrivel up and die.

Now, if his personal beliefs flooded into the way the company functions? That's quite another thing.

I'm not sure where you're seeing anyone advocate for his removal. Okcupid just politely informed you in case that sort of thing is important to you. People are allowed to continue to use a product regardless of the CEOs personal beliefs, just as people are allowed to choose not to support people who they disagree with. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

Oh, the old "tolerate the intolerant" adage. "Disapproving of someone for something they have no control over" and "disapproving of someone for having an entirely optional opinion and actively supporting legislation that denies a group of people their civil rights" are not equal.[/quote]

If you think there ultimate goal wasnt removal of the CEO I'm curios what you think the actual intentions were.

Either way his personal beliefs are irrelevant to how this man does his job until he decides to bring the company in the direction of his personal politics. You do have to tolerate shitty opinions But you don't have to like them. You are free to disagree with people but they are allowed to have those opinions and realistically they shouldn't be brought up in a professional setting

 

[Lightknight]

Great, so people shouldn't be hired based on their personal beliefs. Glad to know that that tolerance is a one way street. Not that I give two shits east who marries who. I just consider it an epic double standard to demand that people who hold a different belief, even controversial ones, should be un-hire-able and shrivel up and die.

Now, if his personal beliefs flooded into the way the company functions? That's quite another thing.

I'm not sure where you're seeing anyone advocate for his removal. Okcupid just politely informed you in case that sort of thing is important to you. People are allowed to continue to use a product regardless of the CEOs personal beliefs, just as people are allowed to choose not to support people who they disagree with. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

Oh, the old "tolerate the intolerant" adage. "Disapproving of someone for something they have no control over" and "disapproving of someone for having an entirely optional opinion and actively supporting legislation that denies a group of people their civil rights" are not equal.

That's turning a blind eye to the intention of the action. Company hires a guy with a belief system they don't agree with so they decide to punish the company for not being more discriminatory. Hiding it behind the guise of informing customers doesn't make it any less pro-discrimination. Their goal is to send a message that companies shouldn't hire people if they hold beliefs that this group doesn't hold.

I get that their position upsets you and so it's easy for you to dismiss them as not deserving the same basic human rights we enjoy on our side of the fence. But that is not what our rights stand for.

And look, it's common to automatically associate people who advocate "traditional marriage" with those who disapprove of someone for what they are born as but the two are not inseparable. Some people and cultures simply believe that marriage is axiomatically between a man and woman. That doesn't necessarily imply anything negative regarding alternative arrangements but merely states a definition of a term (of course, some people are absolutely also anti-gay). Again, this is why I think the government has no right assuming control of the term "marriage license". It's not theirs to control. It is the sole property of religious and cultural segments and that includes gay culture and their own willingness to marry each other. But because the government insists on maintaining a mandatory "Marriage" license to gain access to legal financial and familial unions then people are going to associate the two things as one in the same even though marriage has almost always been common law even in America with marriage licenses being to overcome the few laws regarding it (permissible age, marrying a mourning period, etc.) and not to let it happen at all. Additionally, the marriage ceremony itself was a religious or cultural ceremony.

In my discussion with others on the subject, I have found that many people in the traditional marriage camp have no problem with gay couples having all the benefits of marriage. Inheritance, family benefits like visitation rights, etc. They simply don't believe that marriage is a flexible or subjective term. So you've got to ask yourself, what is the goal here? Is it to have a license with the term "marriage" written on it or is it to get all of the basic rights that come along with it? The answer is likely both but I think the fight for the marriage license is more of trying to force society to accept their union. That will not achieve the goal but changing the term will alter the uphill battle in a favorable way and hopefully make sure all groups get the same treatment.

This is why I advocate the complete removal of the term "marriage" from the government license language. They are appropriating a term that means something to people and that is causing a tremendous amount of confusion and conflict. Just changing the term should begin to alleviate some of the pressures and give gay couples access to rights they should have been having all along.

 

[allonbacuth]

yeah, kinda. if you're not fighting for justice, or at least taking the smallest measure possible by using a different browser, then you are a part of the problem.

Or you have opinions on what browser to use that are separate from the whole debate. Until firefox makes a change with their product, thats what I'm using. If that makes me "part of the problem" then the problem isn't going to be solved any time soon.