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.

Thread beginning with comment 585721
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSNews = On Sex News"
ricegf
Member since:
2007-04-25

1) Why could sacrificial love not apply to people of the same gender? Christ is male, but why is the church female, except to make the analogy work by presupposing marriage as man + woman?


Again, I'm speaking theologically from one practicing Christian's perspective, because you ask.

In Matthew 19, Jesus was asked if divorce (as fashionable then as now) was morally permissible for people of faith. In answering, he specifically pointed back to the very beginning - Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 - where (we believe) God created marriage as a permanent bond between one man and one woman.

I suppose it's valid to claim that Jesus was presupposing the definition of marriage as you state, but only because (we believe) he defined it that way from the start.

2) Why not oppose atheist marriage for the same reason?


Theologically, as far as I know, there's no basis to oppose marriage by non-Christians, as biblical morality applies to Christians rather by definition.

Most of the conflict (from my view) hasn't come from trying to prevent gay marriage itself - I believe a young woman married a dolphin in Florida a few years back, and really, who cares? It's her life - as much as trying to avoid having the government legally recognize such marriages. That was what DOMA actually addressed - it never "outlawed gay marriage", as the press endlessly parroted, but rather prohibited the federal government from recognizing or forcing states to recognize those marriages - unconstitutionally, as it turns out. :-)

It's that whole "you're trying to force your morality on us!" thing that Christians and non-Christians periodically hurl at each other, usually because... well, because we both periodically do exactly that. *sigh*

From the Christian side of things, in the same way that atheists fought all the way to the supreme court to force the Boy Scouts of America organization to accept gay leaders, and the supreme court is at this moment deciding whether a privately owned business can be forced by the government to pay for medical procedures that violate their personal and religious convictions, there is concern that churches and private businesses will similarly be forced to host, perform, and recognize gay marriages even if such actions violate their personal and religious beliefs.

You know, kind of like gay marriage advocates are trying to destroy a man who dares to act in his private life in accordance with his personal beliefs.

Again, I don't particularly care who marries who. For example, while on our honeymoon in Paris, my wife and I toured with a gay couple who happened to be part of our traveling group (this was in the 1980s), and we had a lovely time. I've also had several gay friends through the years, and never had any argument with them. How delightful it would be if we could simply be left to believe as we choose, and act on those beliefs according to the dictates of our conscience, without people who disagree attempting to coerce our actions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Again, I don't particularly care who marries who. For example, while on our honeymoon in Paris, my wife and I toured with a gay couple who happened to be part of our traveling group (this was in the 1980s), and we had a lovely time. I've also had several gay friends through the years, and never had any argument with them. How delightful it would be if we could simply be left to believe as we choose, and act on those beliefs according to the dictates of our conscience, without people who disagree attempting to coerce our actions.


Were black people "coercing your actions" when they argued in favour of interracial marriage? If no, then neither are same-sex couples when they fight for not being discriminated against by the state.

In most developed nations, religious marriage has no legal standing. In The Netherlands, for instance, religious couples marry twice - once for the state, once for their religious community. The religious wedding - ceremonial wedding - has no legal standing, no legal meaning. Even non-religious couples sometimes marry twice - the state wedding at city hall in the morning, a big ceremonial wedding at a beautiful location later in the day, where all friends attend.

This is how it should be, because in any modern, developed nation, there is a separation between church and state. The funny thing is that here in The Netherlands, protestant churches were performing same-sex marriages all the way back to the '80s, and right now, many of them have no issue with it at all.

With religious marriage not having any legal standing whatsoever, religious communities are free to deny or grant same-sex marriages all they want - that is none of my concern. However, with more than 90% of the Dutch population being strictly in favour of same-sex marriage, Dutch protestant churches knew which way the wind was blowing - and many of them have adjusted. Those that haven't - go ahead, I don't give a shit. Religious communities denying same-sex marriage is just as relevant to me as the state granting same-sex marriages should be to you.

The first article of the Dutch Constitution is the equality principle, namely, that all Ditch citizens have 100% equal rights. As such, by denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, the government was actually violating its own constitution. Hence, same-sex marriage was an inevitability.

I respect that you think that whatever was written down thousands of years ago is truth to you, but to me, and to a proper, modern government, your book is no more or less truth than The Lord Of The Rings. The bible also prohibits wearing two different fabrics at once, and advocates stoning. Do you follow those rules as well, or do you only pick to follow the rules that suit you?

At the end of the day, a state that gives more rights to group A than to group B based on the colour of their skin, their religion, or their sexual orientation, is barbaric, oppressive, and yes, medieval.

Just as we now agree that people of different colour can marry, and that it is unethical for a government to prohibit as such, it is also unethical of a government to prohibit marriage based on sexual orientation. Within a few decades, we'll look back upon the US as it is now, and treat the hate towards same-sex marriage with as much disdain as we now treat institutional racism in several decades ago.

Edited 2014-04-01 11:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by pfortuny on Tue 1st Apr 2014 13:20 in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
pfortuny Member since:
2006-02-05

What you are not taking into account is the simple fact that 'marriage' meant one thing and then, out of the blue, it meant a different thing. And I mean it as a 'social institution', nothing more.

So suddenly claiming that 'gay couples' have a right to marry is just a redefinition of the 'social institution' of marriage and whatever you think and say, this is something which some people think should not be done: not denying gay couples the 'right' to marry because *in their point of view* that has absolutely *no* meaning.

It is to them like saying that 'married couples should have the right to remain single': just nonsense.

A different thing is to try and say 'gay couples should have the same rights as married couples'. But this requires at least some explanation (I am not saying I am against it or pro it, I am just asking for some *honest* explanation).

The fact that for you is simple just means that you do not see marriage as a social institution but just as a mere contract. This is *your opinion* and I guess people are entitled to have a different one.

Imagine someone saying that anyone should be able to judge his brother: an eye for an eye. Why not? Why not, I say? Is it injustice, if it is one eye for one eye? Why should justice be just left to judges?

What about Muslim justice, for example, should they be entitled to it...?

Just calling names is just calling names: it adds nothing, it subtracts everything.

And the name Nazi is very good and fine, but I say, are you entitled to use it just because you hold an opinion which is the one of the majority *today*?

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Way to go to miss the point about what he was trying to say.

He doesn't have a problem with same sex marriage, he even admits it means different things to different people. He doesn't like that someone's political and personal opinions should have anything to do with their ability or eligibility to do a job when they are obviously not in conflict with what they are doing.

I could understand the complaint if it was someone who was obviously homophobic running a LGBT charity.

Like it or not people have to realise that you are going to have to work with some people you don't like or don't agree with their beliefs, but as long as they are competent and don't bring those beliefs to work there isn't a lot you can do about it.

Also it was a $1000 over half a decade ago, I spent more in one night on the roulette table after taking some class A drugs.

Edited 2014-04-01 17:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by mieses on Tue 1st Apr 2014 18:09 in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
mieses Member since:
2006-02-07

You imply that the defense of interracial marriage is based on similar grounds as the defense of gay marriage. If you see marriage as a right, regardless the definition of the word, then do you also support the right of all citizens to marry regardless of age, relationship, and the number of persons entering into a given marriage (provided no "harm" is done to others)?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Tue 1st Apr 2014 19:07 in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Interracial marriage would seem to be well-supported by Galatians 3:28 and the entire book of Ruth.

I'm unaware of anyone who promotes Sharia-like enforcement of the legal code of ancient Israel, something that Jesus dismissed as unnecessary in Mark 12:17. But it is not "picking and choosing" to follow the interpretation of the sacrificial and moral law in my personal life, exactly as Jesus stated.

You'll also note that I wrote in favor of equal treatment before American law for all people in my country. I stand by that, and also respect those who disagree with me on my personal beliefs. My concern remains those who seek to destroy those with whom they disagree.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:49 in reply to "RE[3]: OSNews = On Sex News"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Most of the conflict (from my view) hasn't come from trying to prevent gay marriage itself - (...) as much as trying to avoid having the government legally recognize such marriages.

Yeah. But unless it works wildly differently in the US than in Europe, the government is the only institution that is allowed to issue marriages, or, by proxy, the only institution allowed to define what marriages it recognizes (which would amount to the same). So since the only legal definition of marriage is "those that the governement sanctions/recognizes", preventing the government to recognize same-sex marriages prevents those marriages de jure.

That was what DOMA actually addressed - it never "outlawed gay marriage", as the press endlessly parroted, but rather prohibited the federal government from recognizing or forcing states to recognize those marriages - unconstitutionally, as it turns out.

As I wrote above, that amounts to exactly the same. "The DOCA (Defence of Car Act) never "outlawed cars with three wheels", but rather prohibited the federal government from recognizing anything without four wheels as cars." Potato, potahto...

It's that whole "you're trying to force your morality on us!" thing that Christians and non-Christians periodically hurl at each other, usually because... well, because we both periodically do exactly that.

Except, the seculars are more right in this case than the Christians. Preventing the government from recognizing same-sex marriage because Christians don't recognize same-sex marriage forces Christian morality onto everyone, Christian or not, by proxy of the government. On the other hand, recognizing same-sex marriage because non-Christians recognize same-sex marriage doesn't force anything upon Christians*.

*Yes, even Christians now need to treat same-sex married couples as opposite-sex married couples, but to my knowledge only as far as federal laws are concerned.

From the Christian side of things, in the same way that atheists fought all the way to the supreme court to force the Boy Scouts of America organization to accept gay leaders

And they lost. Your point being?

and the supreme court is at this moment deciding whether a privately owned business can be forced by the government to pay for medical procedures that violate their personal and religious convictions

The actual test there is, I think, whether religious freedom may trump laws, and if so to which extent.

there is concern that churches and private businesses will similarly be forced to host, perform, and recognize gay marriages even if such actions violate their personal and religious beliefs.

I understand the concern. But to react by trying to prevent it altogether is imposing your believes on others.

You know, kind of like gay marriage advocates are trying to destroy a man who dares to act in his private life in accordance with his personal beliefs.

What man are we talking about? And what ways they are trying to "destroy" him? It seems you use a lot of typical framing language.

Again, I don't particularly care who marries who. For example, (...)

"I'm not a racist, I even have some black friends" We've all heard things like that. Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Tue 1st Apr 2014 18:56 in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

What man are you talking about?


I was referring to Brendan Eich, the person referenced in Thom's post on which we are all commenting.

Reply Parent Score: 2