Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Mar 2014 23:45 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

For the Internet community, the principles of free speech and equal rights are foundational. But in recent days, those issues are clashing at Mozilla, the nonprofit foundation and tech company behind the Firefox browser.

At issue is Brendan Eich, a co-founder of Mozilla, inventor of the much used Javascript programming language and the newly appointed CEO of the company. Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign for California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. The donation had come to light in 2012, but fizzled.

Opposing same-sex marriage is no different than opposing interracial marriage. As a Dutchman, it baffles me that an organisation like Mozilla appointed a man with such medieval ideas.

Permalink for comment 585669
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Tue 1st Apr 2014 04:46 UTC in reply to "OSNews = On Sex News"
Member since:

Why do we have such a medieval thing as marriage? Wasn't it just a way to own women?

No. Please try to remember that you asked the question, and I'm just giving an honest answer from my personal perspective as a practicing Christian.

Many who self-identify as Christian follow Ephesians 5:25-33, which establishes marriage as an analogy of the relationship between Christ and his church, and specifically his willingness (we believe) to die to protect and save his people. It's nearly the opposite of "ownership" - it's sacrificial love.

That's why changing the (government's) definition of marriage tends to upset so many Christians, and why so many people insist that marriage is more than "just a legal contract" - marriage has been wrapped up in theology for thousands of years.

I suspect that if the exact same laws were labeled "civil unions", you'd see a lot less heartburn - though I understand the desire of gay people to receive the same acknowledgement before the law, and the refusal of so many to accept that compromise as even slightly acceptable.

Of course, given the general disregard of marriage in (at least) American society in the age of quick, no-fault divorce, I'm suspicious we'd be better off if the government didn't acknowledge "marriage" at all - just offer civil unions as a shorthand for a set of legalese. My stubborn libertarian streak leaks out sometimes, I guess. But I'm a backslid libertarian, so I could be wrong. *shrugs*

People must be free to be together or be separate. What do we have marriage for?

As someone who has been happily married for 27 years, I would say that I find great satisfaction in the life we have built together. The permanence of our marriage, as we do not accept divorce as a moral option, is a large part of the satisfaction. We're partners for life, no plan B, we burned the ships, and all that jazz.

If you told my wife that I own her, by the way, she'd nearly die laughing. You'd probably make her day.

I don't give a flip who you choose to marry or why, or which marriages the government chooses to accept for tax and inheritance purposes or not, but I do have grave concerns over the efforts of proponents of government recognition of gay marriage to destroy the lives of those who disagree with them. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Or so I heard a man say once while growing up in Mississippi in the 1960s.

So. That's one man's opinion. Feel free to try to have me fired and blacklisted now...

Reply Parent Score: 5