OkCupid website asks users not to use Firefox, cites Mozilla CEO's anti-LGBT beliefs
- Thread starter Himanshu Arora
- Start date
Im not going to stop using my browser of choice because someone who helped make it has a questionable political opinion. Might as well stop eating half the food I eat, or stop using half the gadgets I use them, AMIRITE?
D
davislane1
Prop 8, which was a California issue, is what has generated all of this nonsense. Why one earth would I need to mount a Mozilla defense when the central issue originated in the
You see, it seems to me that you might be another one of them foreigner types arbitrarily choosin' what's gonna be global and whatnot, irrespective of the contextual nature of the politics. You can't play with them thar tricky rules, sonny! It's intellectually dishonest, ya see. Gotta keep them issues in the appropriate perspective!
G
Guest
What about my rights as a parent to minimize my child's exposure to the gay agenda?
Darkshadoe
Posts: 567 +111
I could care less if two same-sex people want to marry or that some douchehole did not support Prop 8. Just let me use my browser in peace.
D
davislane1
First, even a marriage contract is subject to dispute. My point was that nothing prevents a homosexual couple from transferring assets or liabilities through a will or other contract if they so choose. Those contracts are subject to the same range of disputes and weaknesses as any heterosexual couple that would draw one up. In short, no inequality exists.
While I personally do not endorse the redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals, I do recognize that they should be able to establish the same legal relationship as any heterosexual couple. To say, "you can't convey assets and benefits" or "you can't share liabilities" because of the sexual nature of two people's relationship is moronic. In this respect, there are a few problems that I feel need to be addressed. Simply put, if you want to "share your life" with someone, you should be able to. This is not in dispute, by anyone.
Secondly, "marriage" does, in fact, belong to religious intuitions. I suggest reading up on your Western history. Generic "unions" between people predate established modern religion, as you point out. But they are both culturally and theologically different things.
Prop 8 and the on-going battle over gay marriage isn't about preventing homosexuals from forming unions. It is entirely concerned with redefining marriage as an institution. The whole "equality" angle is merely a very effective but highly fallacious rhetorical ploy.
guyver1
Posts: 110 +4
Yes, because an imaginary 'thing' in the sky is merely a very effective but highly fallacious rhetorical ploy to discriminate.
Marriage, like anything is subject to social evolution. Religions do NOT OWN marriage, in either literature or the act of. Words change and so do social conventions and practices.
D
davislane1
We're talking politics and rights here, not the validity or implications of the world's theologies.
You'll get no objection from me on this one. I completely agree.
This is getting retarded. this website just got free publicity by using gay marriage on every it&c news website. why are people even writing articles about this ****?
D
davislane1
You see the view count on this and other politically charged articles? There's your answer.
Sarcasm
Posts: 381 +48
"Last week, half of the Mozilla board stepped down over Eich's appointment. "
Again, two of the three that stepped down did it for other reasons not related to his appointment as CEO. The WSJ has spread this FUD and has now stuck like glue. Come on TechSpot, try making your own articles. Contact our communications team at Mozilla if you have to.
Again, two of the three that stepped down did it for other reasons not related to his appointment as CEO. The WSJ has spread this FUD and has now stuck like glue. Come on TechSpot, try making your own articles. Contact our communications team at Mozilla if you have to.
He has the right to donate to whatever he feels like. Why the hypocrisy if the shoe is on the other foot. Th LG community would be better off promoting discussion but no they try to demonize anyone who disagrees with their position immediately after some thing they don't like is said. Some people have legitimate reasons for their views but the intolerant left wants us to just shut up and say ok, it's cool. As long as we agree with them fine, but disagree and their rampant hypocrisy rears it's head. And try telling the black community it's a civil rights issue and you'd be lucky to get out of their neighborhood alive.
The left wants to remove those rights because they "know best what's right" for you. See all the examples of the lunacy that now pervades the schools called "Common Core"
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,823
OK, let's see if I'm up to speed on this, some clown a** dating site is now in charge of what people are supposed to think. And they believe they're entitled to determine which browser people should be using. Wow, the tail isn't just wagging the dog anymore, it's wagging an entire plow team of jacka**es.
I think they should be be putting their,"money" where their mouth is, and donating some crap hole internet play money to the LGBT cause. Maybe their server could donate some of its free time to doing that mining, instead of spewing out a bunch of idle BS, about a topic that really isn't their business.
I'm against gay "marriage", but I'm for Civil union equality. So, legislation has been moving toward hetro and homosexual equality with respect to property, civil entitlements, and inheritance rights. If the gay community wants to sit around and argue semantics until their wagging fingers fall off, that's their problem. The genuine issues are being addressed.
After all, couldn't the basis of the US Constitution be summed up thus; "you go inside your house to do your dirty business, and I'll keep mine in mine, while the government minds its own business". OK, that's a really loose interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but by Dog (*), it's in there..
Besides, the homosexual lifestyle has quite a few rough edges and warts. It isn't just the contrived nonsense that, "Modern Family" puts forth as "typical". That's pretty much the propaganda that is powering the whine over civil unions having to be called "marriages".
You should go sample public opinion in the gay bath houses of New York City, where the meth flows as a sexual dis-inhibitor, and they've cooked up a new form of "super AIDS", that infects badly in weeks, instead of years. Ask the male gays up there, who may have a dozen sexual contacts in an evening, if they're ready to, "settle down".
(*) God, Dog, whatever, I gotta pretend I believe in something or the other children will try to force me out of my job.
OK, here's a few things to think about. In traditional marriage, property rights attach, and they often favor the woman, and the children. What happens when a gay marriage collapses? If you're going to have a gay marriage, wouldn't, or shouldn't, you have to legally declare who is playing the role of the male, and to whom the female role attaches. In states with alimony stipulations, who would have to pay? The partner with the job at the time of the dissolution? Or the one adopting the male role? Who is favored with guardianship of any possible children involved?
I think they should be be putting their,"money" where their mouth is, and donating some crap hole internet play money to the LGBT cause. Maybe their server could donate some of its free time to doing that mining, instead of spewing out a bunch of idle BS, about a topic that really isn't their business.
I'm against gay "marriage", but I'm for Civil union equality. So, legislation has been moving toward hetro and homosexual equality with respect to property, civil entitlements, and inheritance rights. If the gay community wants to sit around and argue semantics until their wagging fingers fall off, that's their problem. The genuine issues are being addressed.
After all, couldn't the basis of the US Constitution be summed up thus; "you go inside your house to do your dirty business, and I'll keep mine in mine, while the government minds its own business". OK, that's a really loose interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but by Dog (*), it's in there..
Besides, the homosexual lifestyle has quite a few rough edges and warts. It isn't just the contrived nonsense that, "Modern Family" puts forth as "typical". That's pretty much the propaganda that is powering the whine over civil unions having to be called "marriages".
You should go sample public opinion in the gay bath houses of New York City, where the meth flows as a sexual dis-inhibitor, and they've cooked up a new form of "super AIDS", that infects badly in weeks, instead of years. Ask the male gays up there, who may have a dozen sexual contacts in an evening, if they're ready to, "settle down".
(*) God, Dog, whatever, I gotta pretend I believe in something or the other children will try to force me out of my job.
OK, here's a few things to think about. In traditional marriage, property rights attach, and they often favor the woman, and the children. What happens when a gay marriage collapses? If you're going to have a gay marriage, wouldn't, or shouldn't, you have to legally declare who is playing the role of the male, and to whom the female role attaches. In states with alimony stipulations, who would have to pay? The partner with the job at the time of the dissolution? Or the one adopting the male role? Who is favored with guardianship of any possible children involved?
Last edited:
Darth Shiv
Posts: 2,371 +886
I specifically cited marriage predating Christianity and Islam. *Not* religion. Marriage existed at the very least in the Roman Empire *and* included homosexual unions.
My point being that Christianity and Islam shouldn't dictate that they own the word marriage and it's definition because they do not.
For the record, I am happily heterosexual but believe that the individual has the right to choose their partner and have full legal recognition of that equality.
stansfield
Posts: 106 +33
I am sick of hearing of the "rights" of homosexual and lesbian people. Why has what they do in their bedrooms achieved such significant importance when there are far more serious things to deal with in this world. Whatever they want, just let them do it but for heavens sake can they just shut up and let other people get on with their lives instead of the continual harassment they give us.
G
Guest
I always love reading this argument. I imagine that everyone who says it has a carefully thought through list of "the most serious problems in the world" going from 1 through to 984 billion. And we absolutely have to go one at a time, top to bottom.
On topic:
Flip it on its head:
If a dude gave money to an LGBT cause before becoming the CEO of Mozilla, would anyone care? Would that make them better or worse at the job of leading a company? No. His political and personal ideologies shouldn't matter at all.
If Mozilla now puts out a new browser with anti-gay propaganda as its home page, you've got yourself a topic to shout about. They hire a new CEO whose feelings differ from yours? Cry more please.
Free thought and free speech work both ways. You don't have to be scared because there are opinions out in the world that you disagree with, you can just put forth your measured arguments for why you disagree with them.
G
Guest
History
Birth at Netscape
JavaScript was originally developed by Brendan Eich. While battling with Microsoft over the Web, Netscape considered their client-server offering a distributed OS, running a portable version of Sun Microsystems' Java. Because Java was a competitor of C++ and aimed at professional programmers, Netscape also wanted a lightweight interpreted language that would complement Java by appealing to nonprofessional programmers, like Microsoft's Visual Basic (see JavaScript and Java).[9]
I believe OKCupid use C++
Maybe his believes not the only thing for their decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#cite_note-9
Birth at Netscape
JavaScript was originally developed by Brendan Eich. While battling with Microsoft over the Web, Netscape considered their client-server offering a distributed OS, running a portable version of Sun Microsystems' Java. Because Java was a competitor of C++ and aimed at professional programmers, Netscape also wanted a lightweight interpreted language that would complement Java by appealing to nonprofessional programmers, like Microsoft's Visual Basic (see JavaScript and Java).[9]
I believe OKCupid use C++
Maybe his believes not the only thing for their decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#cite_note-9
D
davislane1
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. While "marriage" (legal union) predates both Christianity and Islam (these institutions are what I was referencing when I said "religion"), the institution of marriage that has developed throughout the West (and Mid-East) for the past 2,000 years has been the product of major religious institutions and the culture they have fostered in their respective civilizations.
What the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians or the Chinese did prior to Christianity and Islam is irrelevant. Whether or not they should be allowed to exert such influence on the issue is also irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they have possessed authority over it for centuries and by virtue of that cannot simply be cut from the equation. Suggesting they don't effectually "own" marriage is the same as suggesting a lion doesn't effectually "own" the African plains.
But I digress...
We have no disagreement on this point. Like I said in an earlier comment, homosexuals should be able to establish the same legal relationship as any hetero married couple. I simply object to the redefinition of marriage and dispute the inequality argument.
Darth Shiv
Posts: 2,371 +886
Actually your point is *exactly* why the ownership can be disregarded. Obsolete ideas are discarded throughout history. Like the Egyptions, Romans, Persians etc.
We should move on from the outdated ideas that contraception is bad, homosexuality is bad, marriage is for heterosexuals, interracial relationships are bad.
You are assuming the Lion rules the African plains for all time. It has not (it certainly didn't millions of years ago). It would be naive to think it will for all future time as well.
D
davislane1
But the issue you've raised here is whether or not the concepts in question are, in fact, obsolete. "Old" or "antiquated" does not equal "obsolete." If the church(es) still exert authority (which they do) and the majority of people still subscribe to the culture they've helped build (which they apparently do), then their authority cannot merely be dismissed. To demonstrate why, I'll go back to the analogy.
We can dispute the authority of a lion on the basis of it having not "evolved" over the past few thousand years. We can say that it wasn't the first and won't be dominant forever. Call it an evolutionary relic, a predator with numbered days or what have you. But no matter how hard you try to sell that argument to a zebra, not a single horse in the Savanna will buy your position for the simple fact that lions still have teeth and claws.
This has the potential to deviate even further off topic, so this will be my only response to this series of 'outdated' ideas:
1. Contraception isn't in popular dispute for this very reason (though specific forms of contraception have been making headlines recently).
2. The idea that homosexuality is "bad" is supported by Science® (higher rates of STDs, and significantly greater HIV and AIDS infection rates, among other things).
3. [conversation on-going]
4. This is a debatable point, though not a subject I have any particular interest in. (Note: before someone screams raciss, my parents are an interracial couple...black/white...As far as I'm concerned, I've no skin in the race game by reason of unavoidable conflict of interests.)
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
What should i do?- bruno167573 replied
-
Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs. Ryzen 7 7800X3D, Ryzen 9 7900X3D and 7950X3D- Lew Zealand replied
