whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance

[Energize]

Who uses Firefox these days?

People who want a browser that supports proper tabbed browsing unlike Chrome which crashes and then breaks all the tabs.

Though since you were trolling I guess it's a rhetorical question anyway.

It seems to me people want the same stigma attached to it that racism receives.

Seems reasonable.

 

[elmarko]

You may think you are being clever here but in reality you are making very little sense at all.

That would be the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[Gilly]

He directly donated to the Yes to Proposition 8 campaign. So a direct financial donation to a bill that was specifically anti gay. That shows a certain level of support for it. I don't think he has made any public announcements on why he supported the bill but he is certainly now making lots of public announcements about how Mozilla is gay friendly.

Was it specifically anti gay, or was it specifically anti gay marriage? I thought it was the latter.

It doesn't necessarily make him the homophobe he's being made out to be.

This was actually the point i was making against the gays. Unsurprisingly you twist it back on to me. I was not the one using the term discrimination to start with. It was used by the gays who claim that not being for homosexual marriage is discrimination, so i reversed that and made the point that being for homosexual marriage is discriminating against people who advocate traditional marriage. So gays are alight to point out discrimination but fail to see their own discrimination.

I am against government marriage all together, we have enough problems with the natural family, the last thing we need is gay marriage to further diminish the importance of the natural family. Its too late now though, although government marriage was always a legal agreement, the traditional significance of marriage which goes back millennia has now been annulled.

None of this makes any sense.

For context, I am a straight male married to a female, and I disagree with your viewpoint entirely.

 

[Kemik]

Background to this thread - http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-mozilla-to-protest-ceo-hire/

In 2008, Eich donated $1,000 in support of California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that sought to ban gay marriage in the state.

Mozilla state:

Mozilla has always been deeply committed to honoring diversity in sexual orientation and beliefs within our staff and community, across all the project’s activities...With thousands of people spanning many countries and cultures, diversity is core to who we are, and we’re united in our mission to keep the Web open and accessible for everyone."

On the CEO, Ars reports:

Eich's own statement, posted on his personal blog in 2012, did not speak to the specific reasons for his $1,000 donation in support of Prop 8. After claiming that "the donation [did] not constitute evidence of animosity," he denounced naysayers by saying that they were "not providing a reasoned argument." He offered no clarification on that point. Eich concluded the piece by saying, "I do not insist that anyone agree with me on a great many things, including political issues, and I refrain from putting my personal beliefs in others’ way in all matters Mozilla, JS, and Web. I hope for the same in return."

 

[elmarko]

I'm yet to hear what actually changes for people who are married if/when gay people gain the same right.

I mean, who's life is validated by the limitations of others?, how sad must an individuals marriage be if it only garners meaning if different types of couples are excluded from the same rights?.

Also, people seem to misunderstand what discrimination really is.

Freedom against discrimination is about being allowed to do as you please when nobody else is harmed/denied the same rights.

This freedom ends with the self, you do not have the right to interfere or deny others gaining the same equal rights - it's not a complicated issue but one some people seem unable to grasp.

 

[Westyfield2]

Since when does the opinions of one man represent that of a company?

This.

To be against gay marriage is not discrimination or oppression. Calling for the public boycott of a software organisation because the ceo donated towards a bill that wanted to prevent gay marriage is worse than simply being against gay marriage.

The ways the gays think is that anyone who does not support their gay marriage should be socially outcast. this is no different than the oppression the gays had to deal with in the past and makes them no better than the oppressors.

I don't see how being against gay marriage is something to be ashamed of? I don't think its controversial or of low character, in fact i think its the opposite.

Gays always failed to accept that people can be against gay marriage without being against gays or homosexuality in general. Some people are against gay marriage because they are for the natural family or rather want to retain the tradition of marriage. Which is far more controversial.

tl;dr attention seeking homosexuals at it again trying to bring further social acceptability to their sexual preference.

This.

Unless the company say the LBGT community can’t use its service or money is going from said company to groups opposed to the LBGT community then how can the company be branded for that.
If that’s his personal opinion and not that of his company then why does it matter, as has been said everybody is entitled to a PERSONAL opinion, so long as it remains just that.

And this.


Why does the opinions of an individual at the company matter? Was he speaking on behalf of the company, or as a private citizen who has the right to believe whatever the hell he wants.
And even if it was speaking on behalf of the company and donating company money... does it really matter? A company shouldn't be for or against gay marriage... they should concentrate on making their product!

Unless he was actually saying "The gays should all be rounded up and shot", then I couldn't care less. And if he was saying that, then it's incitement to commit violence or hate speech anyways, which there are laws to stop!

Maybe they just need to get a better PR-man, but from what I see in the media the pro-gay movement are a lot more trying to outcast and vilify anyone that dares to disagree with them... whereas the anti-gay movement are a bit more "Meh, you're nice people and that but I'm not overly keen on your sexual practices. Could you just keep it quiet and in your own home please."

 

[Energize]

Why does the opinions of an individual at the company matter?

As CEO he's one of the companies main representatives.

Companies fire people for their opinions all the time, if someone ****s them off on facebook etc.

EDIT - Seriously, that is starred out? It's not even a swear word!

 

[anything I don't mind]

You don't have to be "for" homosexual marriage, that is your right. But claiming gays can't get marriage because it somehow changes the definition of your marriage is ridiculous.

Of course its discrimination when you are free you to get married and gays can't "just because" (though now they can as of a few days ago)

Not sure how gays getting married is going to change the traditional family, it just means thousands of other people who love each other can share their lives together.

Its only discrimination if you admit that it is also discrimination against people who advocate the natural family. You can't have it one way.

I am talking in a general sense, not on an individual basis, when i refer to the natural family, i am talking about the continuation of the species and what is best for society.

Traditional marriage and the natural family go hand in hand. By allowing gays to get married it is further diminishing the importance of the natural family generally speaking. Of course on an individual level you won't notice any difference. But long term it is going to have a negative effect on society. It will be a few generations away but we will soon see the consequences of not valuing the natural family. The reason marriage was invented was to encourage the natural family. Otherwise without the natural family and traditional family model we would be a nation of *******s (raised without parents) raised by whoever was willing to raise us. Sometimes i think if the liberals/gays had their way we would all be raised by the state.

Gays will share their lives together whether they can be legally married or not, all the gay marriage does is give them further social acceptability to their sexual preference. The actual legal benefits of marriage are not that significant.

Here watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RPJjLT8TF8

 

[elmarko]

Its only discrimination if you admit that it is also discrimination against people who advocate the natural family. You can't have it one way.

You can, if you know understand what discrimination is (which you don't actually seem to).

You then go on about the "traditional family" & children - but fail to point out exactly how either of these things will be impacted by gay marriage, with a closing point which seems to imply that gay people simply wanting greater acceptance is somehow a huge & unreasonable thing to want.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Its only discrimination if you admit that it is also discrimination against people who advocate the natural family. You can't have it one way.

How is it one way, straight people can get married and gay people can't in most parts of the US, how is it discrimination against "natural"/traditional marriage to allow gay people to get married???

You can't have it one way either, if its discrimination towards traditional marriage then it's discrimination against gay marriage.

I am talking in a general sense, not on an individual basis, when i refer to the natural family, i am talking about the continuation of the species and what is best for society.

Yeah just what we need on a planet that can't feed and home all of its inhabitants, the planet is overpopulated and we are eventually going to run out of water, food, fossil fuels.

Traditional marriage and the natural family go hand in hand. By allowing gays to get married it is further diminishing the importance of the natural family generally speaking. Of course on an individual level you won't notice any difference. But long term it is going to have a negative effect on society. It will be a few generations away but we will soon see the consequences of not valuing the natural family. The reason marriage was invented was to encourage the natural family. Otherwise without the natural family and traditional family model we would be a nation of *******s (raised without parents) raised by whoever was willing to raise us. Sometimes i think if the liberals/gays had their way we would all be raised by the state.

I still fail to see how allowing a very small percentage of the overall population of the planet is going to diminish traditional marriage.

Celebrities and people who get divorced do more to diminish traditional marriage than two guys getting together.

Gays will share their lives together whether they can be legally married or not, all the gay marriage does is give them further social acceptability to their sexual preference. The actual legal benefits of marriage are not that significant.

What's wrong with making gay couples socially acceptable?

People thought the same when interracial couples wanted to get married...

 

[Gilly]

Its only discrimination if you admit that it is also discrimination against people who advocate the natural family. You can't have it one way.

It isn't discriminatory to those who 'advocate natural family' (I don't understand what this is) unless same sex marriage inhibits them in some way. You have not yet demonstrated that this is the case.

I am talking in a general sense, not on an individual basis, when i refer to the natural family, i am talking about the continuation of the species and what is best for society.

What you deem best for society is irrelevant.

Gays will share their lives together whether they can be legally married or not, all the gay marriage does is give them further social acceptability to their sexual preference.

Social acceptability for them should be the norm, so you are arguing for gay marriage here.

The actual legal benefits of marriage are not that significant.

...and yet there are benefits? That makes it discrimination to not allow same sex marriages.

 

[krooton]

Now that's more like it.

And that's the post that should have been made above instead of the blanket statement which read as some kind of fact when it isn't.

Personally for me Firefox provides the better and more powerful browsing experience. It's stable and as fast as Chrome but has a more robust sync system and the extensions are better as is the bookmark manager which Google haven't updated in Chrome for years, even after many requests by countless people.

I'm with you on this.

I used to use FF years ago, but it slowly became bloated and crap.
I switched to a lovely, speedy Chrome, which in turn became bloated and crap.
FF sorted itself out again, and I have been a happy user of it for the past 2 years now.

 

[anything I don't mind]

You can, if you know understand what discrimination is (which you don't actually seem to).

You then go on about the "traditional family" & children - but fail to point out exactly how either of these things will be impacted by gay marriage, with a closing point which seems to imply that gay people simply wanting greater acceptance is somehow a huge & unreasonable thing to want.

It sounds like you are not accepting the other sides argument enough to appreciate how it is discrimination. If someone believe marriage is only between a man and women and they think that is what makes it special. By removing the right of that person to experience that, he is being discriminated against.

At the cost of diminishing the importance of the natural family i do not think appeasing the homosexuals, just so they feel more accepted is justifiable.

But end of day i am against the state involvement in marriage anyway and don't think there is much hope any more for the natural family. With the state and modern liberalism promoting homosexuality and teaching children that the family is not important, there is not much that can be done in a general sense and it only seems to be getting worse in that regard.

From a personal perspective from someone who never held government marriage to a high level of esteem. Now that it means even less, ie you can marry whatever you want. There is even less reason to get involved with it. The tradition of marriage was about all it had going for it, not that's gone, there is even an less of a reason to get involved with it.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

It sounds like you are not accepting the other sides argument enough to appreciate how it is discrimination. If someone believe marriage is only between a man and women and they think that is what makes it special. By removing the right of that person to experience that, he is being discriminated against.

At the cost of diminishing the importance of the natural family i do not think appeasing the homosexuals, just so they feel more accepted is justifiable.

We are accepting your side of the argument, but disallowing gay people to get married just because it hurts your feelings/beliefs IS discrimination.

The root of the problem is you hate gay people for some reason, having social acceptance and gay marriage are separate issues.

I'll say again, straight celebrities living their life in the media selling their marriages and divorces, and "normal" people divorces hurt traditional marriage/families more than two gay people who love each other wanting to get married, yet you don't have any issues with that?

 

[cheesyboy]

It sounds like you are not accepting the other sides argument enough to appreciate how it is discrimination. If someone believe marriage is only between a man and women and they think that is what makes it special. By removing the right of that person to experience that, he is being discriminated against.

It's discriminatory to remove a status quo in which one group is given preferential treatment, because it hurts the feelings of the group previously endowed with extra privilege?

 

[Burnsy2023]

But end of day i am against the state involvement in marriage anyway and don't think there is much hope any more for the natural family.

I love when people do this. It's so obvious.

Using the term "natural family" is supposed to give a sense that this is that natural and righteous way of life. There is nothing more natural about a more traditional nuclear family over any other type of family. Whilst it may still be part of an ever more dynamic social norm, nature shows that homosexuality and heterosexuality is prevalent pretty much everywhere.

 

[Atlas23]

I love when people do this. It's so obvious.

Using the term "natural family" is supposed to give a sense that this is that natural and righteous way of life. There is nothing more natural about a more traditional nuclear family over any other type of family. Whilst it may still be part of an ever more dynamic social norm, nature shows that homosexuality and heterosexuality is prevalent pretty much everywhere.

You're wasting time unfortunately. This natural family stuff has come up before, and it has been pointed out that homosexuality has been around throughout history and is not a result of the 'breaking down' of the natural family by single mothers and failed marriages.

 

[Hyburnate]

lol this thread. "natural family" you ain't kidding anybody, gay couples are great parents and a lot of the time they adopt which is taking a kid and giving it a loving family.
There are vast differences between civil partnerships and marriages, I don't really get all the fuss over it but it's a needed thing and it's good that its here. Stop worrying over what other people do and get back to what you do.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I love when people do this. It's so obvious.

Using the term "natural family" is supposed to give a sense that this is that natural and righteous way of life. There is nothing more natural about a more traditional nuclear family over any other type of family. Whilst it may still be part of an ever more dynamic social norm, nature shows that homosexuality and heterosexuality is prevalent pretty much everywhere.

I would use the term traditional family but then i get arguments against saying how tradition is religious dogma from the past and so on. So i use the word natural. What i am actually referring to is the biological family that lives together and raises children together. The reason marriage was invented was to encourage parents of children to live together and raise children together. This was before the state and lawyers took the institution over. Originally before the church took it over, marriage was about children.

AS gays can't have children, the original reason for getting married are not relevant. The only reasons they want to get married is to feel more accepted and to get legal status, it has nothing to do with a family per se. This is where i come from with the argument about it diminishing the importance of the natural family. A lot of people don't care for the better meant of society as whole and only care about their personal interest.

 

[robgmun]

Sadly he is right, especially here in the UK.

The rampant hypocrisy of the LGBT community would be hilarious of it wasn't so tragic.