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

[anything I don't mind]

This is going to be controversial but I don't think Gay marriage should be allowed. After your partner and parents children are the next most important thing. People don't consider the fact that in a gay marriage they cannot have children. Yes they can adopt but it isn't the same.

But I don't let this dictate my browser choice. I use Chrome.

I agree with this. Marriage was always about children and homosexuals just hate that argument because they can't have children. So they bring up exceptions like straight couples that don't have children etc. It does not detract from his point that marriage is about children and a family. Its not some infatuation based on whim or visa problem solution. Well it shouldn't be, but that is now what it has become. That is why i was saying, marriage already did not mean that much (to me) and now it means even less.

 

[OhEsEcks]

I agree with this. Marriage was always about children and homosexuals just hate that argument because they can't have children. So they bring up exceptions like straight couples that don't have children etc. It does not detract from his point that marriage is about children and a family. Its not some infatuation based on whim or visa problem solution. Well it shouldn't be, but that is now what it has become. That is why i was saying, marriage already did not mean that much (to me) and now it means even less.

Oh come on... I can't believe people have bothered arguing with this.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I agree with this. Marriage was always about children and homosexuals just hate that argument because they can't have children. So they bring up exceptions like straight couples that don't have children etc. It does not detract from his point that marriage is about children and a family. Its not some infatuation based on whim or visa problem solution. Well it shouldn't be, but that is now what it has become. That is why i was saying, marriage already did not mean that much (to me) and now it means even less.

Each post gets more ridiculous than the last, do you seriously think homosexuals are so petty that they want "your" marriage because they can't have children???????

It's more to do with being and feeling equal and all the legal benefits of marriage, including but not limited to hospital visitation rights and decision making, if you aren't married then you aren't family and have no rights to carry out the wishes of a loved one in the event that the loved one is rendered incapable of making their own choices. People have been arrested for refusing to leave the bedside of what is essentially their partner in all but legal status.

"Won't someone please think of the children, those gays are just asking for special rights."

 

[DangerMoose]

No, to consider something regressive it needs to actually be regressive.

Except for the purpose of the matter of influencing policy, all that is required is that a sufficient portion of the public must believe it is regressive, or even too radical as this sort of thing can swing too far in the other direction (things like legalising narcotics, for example). Being right or wrong actually has little if anything to do with whether or not this is a reasonable way of affecting how people vote. It can be (and almost certainly has been used to bring about negative change) throughout history. To pick an extreme example, how many people do you suppose would have dared support pro Jewish legislation in 1930s Germany? Especially in certain states, do you suppose being an abolishonist in 19th century America was good for one's health? Silencing one man pales in comparison but then so did his "crime".

Democracy doesn't mean the view of the majority has to be decisive all the time. If that had been the case, women or blacks would have never got equal rights in the 20th century or they would have been teaching "Creationism" in many US states. A democracy means more than the dictatorship of the majority.

Fair point but was not Prop8 a public vote, at least as part of its adoption? Though yes, it is indeed true that sometimes elected officials need to make choices at odds with the views of the voting public. In which case, they themselves must still be free to fully explore the matter at hand and not be intimidated into keeping quiet during the debate. Because once again, intimidation is not purely a tool for good.

This isn't about revenge, it's about the equality principles. Most major companies pride themselves with following this set of principles so when a major figure in their leadership acts against these them, their image is tainted, making the departure of the individual inevitable.

Only it is about revenge/punishment. A vocal minority sought sanctions against an individual who dared to disagree with their position and donate money to their opposition, if he would not publicly renounce those views. This is punishment for past "misdeads", with the potential outcome of intimidating others into keeping quiet and withholding support on contentious issues. Mozilla do have the right to impose policy internally and might even have had reason to believe that he was continuing to act in ways that were at odds with their philosophies. But I do not see as the behaviour of the website in question (and their role in influencing Mozilla's actions) is so easily defensible.

And ultimately, does silencing the opposition really achieve much at all? As long as homophobia exists, there will be some degree of persecution, be it overt or more subtle. Changing people's views does a hell of a lot more good than forcing them to keep quiet.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Proposition 8 passes and is then struck down by the courts because it infringes upon minority rights. Meanwhile the courts repeatedly suppress the rights of other minority deviant groups by imprisoning them. The logical conclusion of this is that only minority groups with powerful lobbying groups can enjoy protected status.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I agree with this. Marriage was always about children and homosexuals just hate that argument because they can't have children. So they bring up exceptions like straight couples that don't have children etc. It does not detract from his point that marriage is about children and a family. Its not some infatuation based on whim or visa problem solution. Well it shouldn't be, but that is now what it has become. That is why i was saying, marriage already did not mean that much (to me) and now it means even less.

I agree with this post tbh, i have no problem with gay people getting married as they want to show their love to each other but i do have a problem with them adopting tbh.

We all have our beliefs, i believe gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. I dont hate guys i have plenty of gay friends/family that is just my opinion and wont change.

If i was pushed for an answer i would say because it's not natural for a gay couple to have kids it's something that happens between a man and a woman.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Proposition 8 passes and is then struck down by the courts because it infringes upon minority rights. Meanwhile the courts repeatedly suppress the rights of other minority deviant groups by imprisoning them. The logical conclusion of this is that only minority groups with powerful lobbying groups can enjoy protected status.

There's a difference between sexual orientation and the act of sex, looks like you can't distinguish the two.

 

[cheesyboy]

Proposition 8 passes and is then struck down by the courts because it infringes upon minority rights. Meanwhile the courts repeatedly suppress the rights of other minority deviant groups by imprisoning them. The logical conclusion of this is that only minority groups with powerful lobbying groups can enjoy protected status.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't support them, though, does it?

It's worth bearing in mind that the opposition is pretty powerful too - encompassing as it does such people as the head of Mozilla.

If your concern is that other groups are unfairly persecuted in silence, then you can better serve them by raising attention to their plight than you can by arguing against emancipation of others.

 

[cheesyboy]

I agree with this post tbh, i have no problem with gay people getting married as they want to show their love to each other but i do have a problem with them adopting tbh.

We all have our beliefs, i believe gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. I dont hate guys i have plenty of gay friends/family that is just my opinion and wont change.

If i was pushed for an answer i would say because it's not natural for a gay couple to have kids it's something that happens between a man and a woman.

Adopting other people's children isn't "natural" either.

 

[OhEsEcks]

What we really need to be doing is stopping animals that can switch their sex from reproducing because they're not conceiving the child via the missionary position in a good christian marriage.

 

[elmarko]

And ultimately, does silencing the opposition really achieve much at all? As long as homophobia exists, there will be some degree of persecution, be it overt or more subtle. Changing people's views does a hell of a lot more good than forcing them to keep quiet.

You seem to be bundling freedom of speech with freedom from the consequences of that speech.

Nobody is forcing them to keep quiet, just now some people may begin to accept that others may not want to do business with organisations headed by people they consider bigoted.

I don't purchase goods or services from known tax avoiders or organisations which score poorly based on local & environmental impact (ethical business index), this is no different really.

We all have our beliefs, i believe gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. I dont hate guys i have plenty of gay friends/family that is just my opinion and wont change.

Nobody is saying you can't believe that, just that others may challenge that belief if & if you pushed them while being the head of a large organisation you should expect some media fallout (which may result in you getting pushed out the door).

You are free to believe that marriage should be between just a man & a women - but you are not free to project that view onto the lives of others & expect them to conform to it.

Personally, I don't care what people think - I care what they do.

You are indeed free to think what you like, but you are not free to do what you like (deny equal rights to others in this case).

 

[Schlong&Stable]

There's a difference between sexual orientation and the act of sex, looks like you can't distinguish the two.

I can distinguish between the two and I still have no idea what point you're making. Care to elaborate?

That doesn't mean we shouldn't support them, though, does it?

It's worth bearing in mind that the opposition is pretty powerful too - encompassing as it does such people as the head of Mozilla.

If your concern is that other groups are unfairly persecuted in silence, then you can better serve them by raising attention to their plight than you can by arguing against emancipation of others.

I cannot think of a group I'd want to advocate for personally. I am just pointing out that a minority only gain sacred cow status once they infiltrate the upper echelons of power such as Media, Politics and so forth.

 

[Beren]

Apologies if I am wrong but has this guy had to stand down because of what, to him, was a tiny donation he made to a political pressure group 6 years ago, or has he said something different in the meantime?
Don't get me wrong I believe I have no issues at all with gay marriage, or any married couple raising children. Statistically a stable partership of any type is a better place,for,a,child,to be. (damn mobile grammar)
What I think is ridiculous is the idea that this guys personal politics should get in the way of the best person for the job being in charge of an important corporation. We need to stop with the mass hysteria of judgement about people. I still like frosties, old Mr Kellog was a truly nasty piece of work, who if there is a,hell is surely burning in it. Two adults who love each other should be allowedbthe same rigbts as any other two people who love each other. Hmm too much tequlia makes for disjointed argument...

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I can distinguish between the two and I still have no idea what point you're making. Care to elaborate?

Doesn't help when you are so vague with your opinion, what other "deviant" groups get imprisoned?

Apologies if I am wrong but has this guy had to stand down because of what, to him, was a tiny donation he made to a political pressure group 6 years ago, or has he said something different in the meantime?
Don't get me wrong I believe I have no issues at all with gay marriage, or any married couple raising children. Statistically a stable partership of any type is a better place,for,a,child,to be. (damn mobile grammar)
What I think is ridiculous is the idea that this guys personal politics should get in the way of the best person for the job being in charge of an important corporation. We need to stop with the mass hysteria of judgement about people. I still like frosties, old Mr Kellog was a truly nasty piece of work, who if there is a,hell is surely burning in it. Two adults who love each other should be allowedbthe same rigbts as any other two people who love each other. Hmm too much tequlia makes for disjointed argument...

He hasn't HAD to stand down, he has voluntarily resigned.

No one is saying he can't say what he said or did what he did but he has to live with the consequences.

 

[XeNoN89]

I think it's disgusting that somebody was forced to quit their job due to personal beliefs on marriage tbh. I don't care about gay marriage, I think marriage as a whole is an outdated and pointless concept, but somebody shouldn't be attacked for their own personal view of a traditional marriage.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I think it's disgusting that somebody was forced to quit their job due to personal beliefs on marriage tbh. I don't care about gay marriage, I think marriage as a whole is an outdated and pointless concept, but somebody shouldn't be attacked for their own personal view of a traditional marriage.

The problem is your personal views become public views when you are the head of a company.

If I'm the head of Microsoft and I say I hate black people and donate money to the KKK do you think I should be allowed to be the head of the company even if I am the best CEO they ever had?

 

[elmarko]

I think it's disgusting that somebody was forced to quit their job due to personal beliefs on marriage tbh. I don't care about gay marriage, I think marriage as a whole is an outdated and pointless concept, but somebody shouldn't be attacked for their own personal view of a traditional marriage.

It's a good job nobody was forced then wasn't it.

The problem is your personal views become public views when you are the head of a company.

Indeed.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Doesn't help when you are so vague with your opinion, what other "deviant" groups get imprisoned?

It's not good manners to answer a question with a question. Either admit you made an unfounded accusation or explain your point. Then I'll answer your question.

I think it's important that we establish how much integrity you have before go any further, after all.

 

[Dyson]

I think it's disgusting that somebody was forced to quit their job due to personal beliefs on marriage tbh. I don't care about gay marriage, I think marriage as a whole is an outdated and pointless concept, but somebody shouldn't be attacked for their own personal view of a traditional marriage.

Very true

 

[XeNoN89]

It's a good job nobody was forced then wasn't it.

Ok 'pressured' into it. Stop being pedantic. The man and his character was being openly attacked and that's just wrong.