Welcome to Magazine Premium

You can change this text in the options panel in the admin

There are tons of ways to configure Magazine Premium... The possibilities are endless!

Member Login
Lost your password?

Did Brendan Eich do the right thing by resigning as Mozilla’s CEO?

April 4, 2014
By

In case you haven’t been following it, there’s been rather an ugly controversy involving Mozilla’s (now former) CEO Brendan Eich. It turns out that he made a donation back in 2008 in support of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. As you might imagine this sparked a passionate debate about whether or not it was appropriate for him to lead Mozilla.

Mitchell Baker, the Executive Chairwoman of Mozilla, posted about it on the Mozilla blog:

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

More at Mozilla Blog

Engaging Brendan Eich and others like him versus lashing out in anger
As a gay guy, I have mixed feelings about his resignation and I’m not sure it was a good thing for him, Mozilla or the gay community. It might have been better to engage with him, educate him about why same sex marriage matters, and help him understand why it is so important to the gay community. By forcing him to resign that opportunity has been removed or at least made less potentially valuable.

I don’t know Brendan Eich personally, but I would have been very interested in finding out exactly why he made that contribution. What motivated him? What was going through his head? Was it fear? Religious beliefs? Or something else? We will probably never know now, and I find that to be very unfortunate indeed. It’s very hard to build a bridge to someone when you don’t know why they have a particular point of view.

I understand why so many people lashed out at him and Mozilla in anger or fear. That can be a very tempting thing to do in a situation like this. But does it serve any real purpose beyond trying to make him an example by creating fear in others who might share his point of view? There is a time and place to use anger as a tool, but anger can also become a sword without a hilt if it’s not used carefully.

Mozilla Employees Demand CEO Resign

Even some of Mozilla’s employees demanded Eich’s resignation.

Image credit: Channel 4 News

Brendan Eich’s side of the story
Eich tried to address the public outcry in a post on his blog about becoming Mozilla CEO. I’ve reproduced it in full below. An important thing missing from it was his reasons why he made the donation, and it’s a shame because it would have shined a light on what was going through his head at the time. He also missed the opportunity to offer a direct apology and ask for forgiveness, and those things might have helped people understand who he is now as a person.

I am deeply honored and humbled by the CEO role. I’m also grateful for the messages of support. At the same time, I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results.

A number of Mozillians, including LGBT individuals and allies, have stepped forward to offer guidance and assistance in this. I cannot thank you enough, and I ask for your ongoing help to make Mozilla a place of equality and welcome for all. Here are my commitments, and here’s what you can expect:

Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.

Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn’t make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.

My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.

My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below.

I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

Mozilla is a movement composed of different people around the world, working productively together on a common mission. This is important to our ability to work and grow around the world.

Many Mozillians and others know me as a colleague or a friend. They know that I take people as they come and work with anyone willing to contribute. At the same time, I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability. No leader or person who has a privileged position should. I want to be held accountable for what I do as CEO. I fully expect you all to do so.

I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.

You will see exemplary behavior from me toward everyone in our community, no matter who they are; and the same toward all those whom we hope will join, and for those who use our products. Mozilla’s inclusive health benefits policies will not regress in any way. And I will not tolerate behavior among community members that violates our Community Participation Guidelines or (for employees) our inclusive and non-discriminatory employment policies.

You’ll also see more from Mozilla under my leadership in the way of efforts to include potential contributors, especially those who lack privilege. This entails several projects, starting with Project Ascend, which is being developed by Lukas Blakk. I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community.

More at Brendan Eich

If anybody has a link to specific comments by Brendan Eich about why he made that donation, please post in the comments section below. I have not been able to track down anything in any of the searches I’ve done. The news is filled with stories about his resignation right now.

The future of Brendan Eich and Mozilla
I don’t have any hate or anger in my heart for Brendan Eich, I wish him and Mozilla well as they both try to rebuild after this mess. I just hope that the next time something like this happens people will offer the person in question the opportunity to learn and grow beyond where they were years ago before simply condemning them. Condemnation without the possibility of forgiveness precludes any hope of reconciliation between human beings, and reconciliation is absolutely necessary if we are going to have a better society.

Yes, people can change and grow if you give them a chance
I know that that perspective probably isn’t going to be popular among some who were angry about Brendan Eich being CEO of Mozilla. But I am a big believer in the idea of redemption, and I truly believe that people can change as they grow older and wiser. We’ve seen it happen many times in the past and we’ll see it again in the future.

George Wallace Segregation Quote
Image credit: Izquotes

Remember Governor George Wallace back in the 60s? At one time he vowed “…segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” but over time his views changed completely and he later said “I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over.” Wallace even asked for forgiveness and went on to be reelected as governor in 1982 with strong support from black voters in Alabama.

Civil rights activist John Lewis talks about forgiving George Wallace in this article from the NY Times that appeared after the death of Wallace (the emphasis in the text is mine):

Although we had long been adversaries, I did not meet Governor Wallace until 1979. During that meeting, I could tell that he was a changed man; he was engaged in a campaign to seek forgiveness from the same African-Americans he had oppressed. He acknowledged his bigotry and assumed responsibility for the harm he had caused. He wanted to be forgiven.

I can never forget what George Wallace said and did as Governor, as a national leader and as a political opportunist. But our ability to forgive serves a higher moral purpose in our society. Through genuine repentance and forgiveness, the soul of our nation is redeemed. George Wallace deserves to be remembered for his effort to redeem his soul and in so doing to mend the fabric of American society.

More at NY Times

If someone like George Wallace can change then I believe that others can do so too. But only if we give them the opportunity and only if they – like George Wallace – are truly open to that possibility in their hearts and minds.

What’s your take on this? Tell me in the comments below.


Tags:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



You can unsubscribe to follow-up comments or new posts via links in the email notification message.

161 Responses to Did Brendan Eich do the right thing by resigning as Mozilla’s CEO?

  1. dragonmouth on May 16, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    The forced resignation of Brendan Eich is Political Correctness running amok. A country where anyone can be forced to quit his or her job for voicing unpopular opinions or for supporting unpopular causes is a sorry country indeed. Wasn’t the American Revolution about freedom of expression, among other things? Haven’t tens of thousands of our soldiers died protecting that freedom? The very people who insist that their rights not be infringed upon by Brendan Eich, are the ones infringing on his rigths.

  2. anon on April 8, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    Brendon Eich got charged in the court of public opinion for one action he did 6 years ago, condemned, and sentenced to not being able to be the CEO of an open-source company for the foreseeable future. His action was legal at the time it was done, and was in the context of a public discussion over a matter not related to the running of a company.

    Isn’t that a little harsh? You want a perfect CEO that no pressure group can find anything to pin on, even if they have to dig back six years?

    If the people that make decisions at Mozilla are this susceptible to pressure groups, those of us who are not perfect would appreciate Brendon forking the Mozilla code with a view to re-establishing the foundation on the basis of a meritocracy. It would appear to be the only way to keep decisions about the code out of the hands of people with agendas- and whether that agenda is worthy or not is irrelevant.

    • gyffes on April 8, 2014 at 7:46 pm

      I like this comment. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it’s not an attack, it’s not based on religious belief, and it proposes a solution for those angered by Mozilla’s decision to pursue/accept Eich’s resignation.

    • Purple Library Guy on April 9, 2014 at 12:10 am

      So you’re saying . . . people shouldn’t be allowed to not like him?
      If “being upset” and “saying nasty things about people” is equivalent to imprisoning people, should be illegal and must be stopped, then we’ll have to outlaw the Tea Party and probably all of Republicanism. Really, it boggles my mind the way a political grouping whose main basis of political operation is vicious libel can suddenly be all “OMG, tried in the court of public opinion” when what the public is opining negatively about is something they themselves like.
      Live by the sword die by the sword, mate.

  3. Lawrence Hearn on April 7, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    History seems full of examples where the persecuted become the persecutors, Israeli Zionists currently being top of the list. The Roman Catholic hierarchy quickly became the worst persecutors of Christians (who didn’t tow the party line) after being made State Religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Now vociferous elements in the gay community seem to have taken up this mantle.

    • tellin_int on April 8, 2014 at 12:43 pm

      “Now vociferous elements in the gay community seem to have taken up this mantle.”

      Exactly, just like it’s black people’s fault Paula Deen lost her job and the majority of the public were offended by her views.

  4. Marty on April 7, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    Wow. Seriously?

    Your words and tone make it clear that you have no room for diversity of opinion on the subject. Can a person not have a full understanding of why same sex marriage is important to the gay community and still be opposed to it? Why do you feel that it’s important for someone to apologize for supporting his beliefs? Is it just because his beliefs opposed your own? What would be your response if he had donated to an organization opposed to Proposition 8 and then apologized to those employees that were in favor of it?

    Either a company supports diversity in all its forms, or they don’t. By forcing an employee to resign (at the risk of being fired otherwise) simply because they have a personal belief that is different than that of the “official” company philosophy, doesn’t mean that there needs to be a thorough weeding out of ALL employees that hold ANY belief that differs from the corporate philosophy on ANY subject? If not, then clearly this was not done on any kind of principle. No, it was a targeted witch hunt on a single subject designed to instill fear in anyone that might want a position of authority in any company, Mozilla included. Make sure that everyone knows that if they donate to an anti-same-sex marriage organization or any other anti-gay organization, or say anything that could be considered anti-gay that they could lose their job or not be considered for a position.

    This was one of the most shameful things I’ve seen in a very long time.

  5. sandor on April 7, 2014 at 5:14 am

    Homosexual marriage is not in the constitution per se. And I am sure that the writers of the constitution never thought of it. This right is deduced by th constitution by judges, and as always, it is effected by the judges personal view of the world. There is no person who is completely impartial. In some respect the constitution is like the bible. :-) One can always interpret it to ones own liking.

    • tellin_it on April 7, 2014 at 6:20 pm

      “Homosexual marriage is not in the constitution per se.”

      A gay couple gets married in Massachussetts, but later moves to Texas. Texas refuses to grant a divorce to the couple because Texas doesn’t recognize the marriage. The only reason such a situation can exist is due to inequality under the law, which people like Eich wish to continue.

      “One can always interpret it to ones own liking.”

      Judges are striking down gay marriage bans all over the country, under very similar interpretations.

      • Onan the Barbarian on April 8, 2014 at 6:45 am

        If Texas doesn’t recognize the marriage, they are already effectively divorced.

        • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 1:16 pm

          No, they are not, which is why the case wen to court.

  6. sandor on April 7, 2014 at 5:02 am

    I switched to Opera.

  7. linus t. on April 7, 2014 at 4:10 am

    It’s very hard to build a bridge to someone when you don’t know why they have a particular point of view.

    Oh, cmon now… Im pretty sure you can find someone else who supported Prop.8. Im pretty sure that a majority of voters in California have the same opinion as Eich.
    But some media like to pretend that it didnt happen and that everyone thinks exactly the same and that Eich’s beliefs (not that they matter if they dont affect his work any more than had he been a scientologist) are an oddity in California.

    The thing is that there are quite a variety of people who voted for Prop 8. From people with open hatred toward gays, to religious people (feel free to tell jews and muslims about how wrong their beliefs are), to a variety of subgroups of people who have somewhat ambivalent to those that will support gay unions and benefits but refuse to call it marriage,
    Its good that you want to know but lets face it, you are a very small minority of a very small minority. Sort of like finding an honest banker or truthful politician-lawyer. There is NO debate, there is no discussion, there is the witch hunts of those that dont agree with you.
    I guess Voltaire isnt very popular in your community.

    You might find it offensive that someone doesnt agree with you but I find it offensive that certain beliefs can get you fired.
    We both get offended by things that teh other doesnt.
    And that’s fine, because NOT everyone has the same opinions.

  8. Gyffes on April 7, 2014 at 2:28 am

    As a straight guy (albeit with gay mom) who’s grown increasingly frustrated/irritated/outright annoyed with Mozilla over FF (rapid release silliness, increasing Chromification, ads in Speed Dial), this was the last straw. Had he not stepped down, I was going to remove it from my machines and all those in my control. Ok, so that’s only 30-odd, but you have to strike what blows you can.

    Someone actively supporting discriminatory practices cannot helm a company purported to support inclusiveness.

  9. John on April 6, 2014 at 11:58 pm

    Because of the tyranny of a few radical pro-gay activists and the mealy-mouthed response by Mitchell Baker to the forced resignation (really, it’s a firing, only Eich pulled the trigger on himself due to pressure from radical nut-jobs), I’m dumping Firefox, Thunderbird and Seamonkey from my main Linux box. Additionally, those programs will be blacklisted so that they don’t get re-installed on system updates.

    FWIW, to the author of this piece, it’s none of your business why Brandon Eich made a contribution to a cause he believed in, unless HE chooses to make it your business to know. Fair enough?

    • tellin_it on April 7, 2014 at 2:23 am

      “Because of the tyranny of a few radical pro-gay activists”

      59% of the public, an overwhelming majority, support gay marriage. That’s hardly a ‘radical few:’

      http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/gay-marriage-support-poll-104272.html

      • Onan the Barbarian on April 7, 2014 at 8:17 am

        There was a time when almost 100% of the public thought that burning alleged witches at the stake was a good thing. That didn’t make it right.

        • tellin_it on April 7, 2014 at 6:13 pm

          Way to miss the point completely. Claims the decision was activated by a ‘radical few’ are not valid when 59% of the public support gay marriage.

          Further, why would Mozilla want a figurehead whose views clearly conflict and possibly offend, an overwhelming majority of the public? This is most particularly true in the case of the under 30 crowd, when greater than 70% of them support gay marriage. Why should Mozilla risk offending 3/4 of the youth?

          And you do not get to cherry pick what is or is not ‘right’ for others, just as Eich has no right to cherry pick who is, or is not, entitled to civil rights. Civil rights are for all and are not to be excluded from those you don’t like or those you don’t think are ‘right.’

          This is the Paula Deen case all over again. There’s nothing new to this situation at all.

          • Gyffes on April 7, 2014 at 6:18 pm

            Actually, his comment about witches is perfect: once thought to be real and worth burning, we now laugh at as foolish superstition.

            The US is the only “first world” nation that still has a majority believing in god. Fortunately, this is changing with the younger demographic, because the rest of the world is laughing at us for still following this foolish superstition.

          • Onan the Barbarian on April 8, 2014 at 6:48 am

            59% may support gay marriage, but they didn’t all ask for Eich to resign/be fired. It WERE a few radical activists who did that.

            • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm

              Why should Mozilla have a CEO who risks offending the majority of the population? It’s the same reason Paula Deen lost her contracts.

              • Onan the Barbarian on April 10, 2014 at 7:37 am

                People might get offended for lots of reasons. If anything that “might offend somebody” makes one unsuitable for CEO, you’ll run out of candidates very fast.

                There is no evidence that “the majority of the population” was offended by Eich’s donation. Only a few vocal ones complained. I’m pretty sure that of those 59% who support gay marriage (is that in California, the US or what?), most respect Eich’s right to disagree with them.

  10. NA on April 6, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Agendas should not affect, or get in the way of producing great open source software. Regardless of Mr. Eich
    personal opinions. If he was the best person for the job, then everybody that wanted him removed from his position should be ashamed of themselves. The Mozilla organization is now in a position where everybody feels all warm and fuzzy about the so called “good deed” they did. and now they can have the directer they deserve, ranter than the director that was best for making mozilla great. everybody has opinions about a multitude of things that will piss people off one way or the other, and as long at it doesn’t affect the quality of what they do, what’s the difference? The people who shout the loudest for tolerance seem to be the first ones to look down upon and try to censor All opposing views besides their own. Doing, what they themselves are fighting against to all others. Tolerance should go both ways. So, essentially pushing Mr. Eich to resign may make many of you feel really good about yourselves. but, did you really change anything? Will Mr. Eich now come to change his opinion of your views because what has been done to him? You may not care. but, you should. One more thing, Mr. Eich is was probably well aware of the many different kinds of people that contribute, work and use Mozilla software, is there any evidence that he tried to remove or stop these people from using, working or contributing to the mozilla org? Seems to me, in the end He may be better and more tolerant than the ones that pushed for his removal. I think that before you start looking for equality and tolerance for yourselves you need to see if YOU are practicing what you preach or it just comes off as hollow and selfish.

    • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 9:04 pm

      ” is there any evidence that he tried to remove or stop these people from using, working or contributing to the mozilla org?”

      He did something worse. He contributed to a cause which sought to deny the civil rights of Americans. Why should anyone who respects the Constitution be tolerant of that? Who does he think he is that he gets to dictate who may and who may not have civil rights?

      • NA on April 8, 2014 at 1:53 am

        So, what you are saying is that what Mr. Eich did was illegal? so, anyone that opposes or disagrees with the LGBT are criminals now? Should he have been beaten for his views? denied employment? blacklisted so he cannot provide for his family? and anyone that dares gives him employment call them out and try to put them out of business? I didn’t know that The LGBT supported their own brand of Mccarthyism. Maybe one day the LGBT can make the likes of Herbert Hoover Proud with how you CRUSH all opposing views under the jackboot of one-sided tolerance.

        • NA on April 8, 2014 at 2:01 am

          one more thing, isn’t it funny that Liberals are always lamenting the fact that the constitution gets in the way of “all the good things they want to do” for this country. (if you are not a Liberal, I apologize in advance) And the only time they support it is when it agrees with their agenda. I’m willing to follow the constitution but, I want the whole constitution followed by everybody, not circumvented for here and there for some misguided political agenda.

          • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 1:50 pm

            ” isn’t it funny that Liberals are always lamenting the fact that the constitution gets in the way of “all the good things they want to do” for this country.”

            It wasn’t liberals trying to bypass the Constitution, in this case.

        • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 1:47 pm

          “So, what you are saying is that what Mr. Eich did was illegal?”

          Read what I wrote. I didn’t say what he did was illegal. He donated to support a law that was unconstitutional. Civil rights are not for those Eich likes. Civil rights are for all.

  11. John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    How exactly segregation, a racist movement/policy came into the context of homosexuality,s faith based issue?

    How about look at the facts instead of using the race card to gain ground in non-race related issue?
    This not only an assault on religious freedom, but also an assault on liberty, and freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and in fact this LGBT mafia business and their mob is a modern day lynch mob.
    They are forcing people to resign/step down, fired, pay fines, charged, business closed, and in some cases they are running people out of town/state.
    How is that for tolerance and equality?
    So only the LGBT people and their supporters can have an opinion now?

    The United States of America was found by religious people who sought religious freedom, and now we are being told that we can’t have religious freedom because some tiny minority has fragile egos and fragile feelings, and want their life styles to be forced on everyone.
    It is sad times for the US and for humanity in general.

    You want to be gay?That is your business and your choice. While I disagree with that lifestyle, you are still entitled to your opinion, but just like your are forcing religious people out of public areas and to private homes and churches, keep your LGBT life style in your homes and in private, and do not force it into laws and tell me that I am a bigot for sticking to my faith, because that makes the person who is saying that a bigot.

    I know that this is not a popular opinion in certain areas these days, this comment would probably be removed, or I will get attacked for it, but I am not one of those who are afraid to state their opinion publicly.
    For the radical gays and their supporters to gain access to the donor list of prop 8 and then go after them in their personal life and try to get them fired is a criminal act in my opinion and that warrants these people to be held accountable for their actions.

    I also supported Prop. 8 and donated for it, and will do it again. Come after me. I will certainly take you to court, and if a judge or any official conspires with you to cause me to lose anything, I will take that official to court with you.

    • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 4:58 pm

      “This not only an assault on religious freedom, but also an assault on liberty, and freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and in fact this LGBT mafia business and their mob is a modern day lynch mob.”

      I am sorry ‘religious freedom’ does not give you the right to dictate who does or does not have civil rights. The Constitution trumps your religion. Our government derives from English common law and the Constitution. Our government does not come from the Bible.

      You simply have no right to reserve the civil right of marriage to heterosexuals while excluding it from homosexuals, because constitutional rights apply to ALL citizens, no matter your personal religious opinions.

      • Onan the Barbarian on April 7, 2014 at 8:10 am

        Common law and the Constitution must respect natural law. I firmly believe that natural law states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That isn’t about religion. It’s about the fact that we haven’t the power to bend nature to fulfill all our wishes. You could pass a law which says that every blind person can see, but the law wouldn’t make it true, even if you called sight a “civil right”.

        You may not agree with my beliefs, but you can’t deny my right to stick with them, you can’t deny my right to ask the legislators to defend what I think is right, and you can’t try to get me fired for thinking different from you.

        • Gyffes on April 7, 2014 at 10:41 am

          Do any of you opponents of gay marriage actually understand what marriage IS? It’s a business arrangement, a contract that, historically, sold a daughter to a male of another family in exchange for some number of goats, chickens, cows, and or plot of land. God had nothing to do with it and it certainly isn’t about Nature. In fact, many would say our [attempts at] monogamy are against our natural instincts. Marriage is a human construct and as such can be bent to include whatever arrangements we deem appropriate.

          And before you go slippery sloping your way to “so dogs and cats, too?”, they cannot sign the guestbook, so no.

          • Onan the Barbarian on April 8, 2014 at 6:59 am

            What exactly is the object of that “business arrangement”? The contracted partner must cook, wash, iron? Have sex? You can find lots of people who can do those things for you without requiring that you marry them.

            If you don’t understand that marriage is a lot more than just a business arrangement, I feel pity for you.

            • Gyffes on April 8, 2014 at 8:24 am

              Your inability to reason and willingness to focus on only parts of a statement while ignoring the gist would be laughable were it not so sad.

              My point was that the “traditional marriage” you all seem so hot to defend is not some sanctified holy thing. It was a business arrangement. That’s. It.

              While it may have evolved into more, thats part of the current problem with denying it to any: there are government-granted benefits to being married, there are emotional triggers associated with it where telling someone “this is my wife” conveys a host of data — and emotional investment — that merely saying “this is my partner” does not. Given that marriage’s definition HAS changed over the years, holding to hoary “tradition” to preclude anyone from marrying is immoral and, under our Constitution, illegal.

              Is my point clearer now or are you going to leap on some typo to ignore the argument I posed, again?

              • Onan the Barbarian on April 10, 2014 at 8:04 am

                I did not leap on any typo of yours, and suggesting that I would do that is an attempt on YOUR part to ignore my argument.

                I do not agree with your unsubstantiated assessment that I’m unable to reason, and consider that an unjustified personal attack. I did understand your point, that marriage is only a “business arrangement”, and answered exactly to that, writing that it isn’t. And indeed, you just admitted that there is an “emotional” part that wouldn’t be there if it was just business.

                I also find ridiculous your claim that I’m appealing to “tradition”, while I didn’t mention tradition at all, instead it was you who talked about buying women with goats or chickens. I’m not interested in a discussion on the history of human society. If you want to discuss what marriage IS NOW AND HERE, with actual arguments and without insulting, I might be willing to join.

            • sandor on April 8, 2014 at 11:25 am

              If it is only a business arrangement, than why do you object on insisting that homosexual couples should have only civil union basically with all the rights of marriage. Why does it has to be called marriage? It is obvious that some homosexual couples, rightly so, look at marriage rightly or wrongly, more than just a business arrangements

        • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 1:21 pm

          “I firmly believe that natural law states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.”

          Your belief has been found unconstitutional in courts throughout the country.

          “you can’t try to get me fired for thinking different from you.”

          Anit-discrimination policies in the workplace have been the norm for some time. It was the tech companies in particular that led the way in including sexual orientation in anti-dsicrimination policies. So you can indeed be fired from your job for homophobic bigotry in the workplace.

        • John Sexton on April 13, 2014 at 8:51 pm

          You are to be applauded for your courage. I have been flammed so badly with far tammer and overtly courteous similar statements on other sites. Unfortunately the die has been cast and the quiet dumb oxes are going to need to wake up and get mad.

    • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 5:03 pm

      “i fact this LGBT mafia business and their mob is a modern day lynch mob.n fact this LGBT mafia business and their mob is a modern day lynch mob.”

      This is no LGBT mob. This is 59% of the population, which includes an awful lot of heterosexuals:

      “Record numbers of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll support gay marriage, say adoption by gay couples should be legal and see gays and lesbians as good parents. Most oppose a right to refuse service to gays, including on religious grounds. And, by a closer margin, more also accept than reject gay marriage as a constitutional right.

      Support for gay marriage has advanced from 32 percent in 2004 to a majority for the firsSupport for gay marriage has advanced from 32 percent in 2004 to a majority for the first time three years ago and on to 59 percent in this surveyt time three years ago and on to 59 percent in this survey”

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/record-support-for-gay-marriage-half-see-it-as-a-constitutional-right/

    • Purple Library Guy on April 6, 2014 at 11:45 pm

      You know, people used to use that very same religion to justify segregation and laws against mixed-race marriages. They too would have claimed it was a faith-based issue.

  12. Purple Library Guy on April 6, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Looking at some of the comments, I’m a lot happier with the resignation than I was, due to one key point you, perhaps unwittingly, made. You said, “But does it serve any real purpose beyond trying to make him an example by creating fear in others who might share his point of view?”
    When you say that, it sounds like a bad, or at least unimportant, thing. But an awful lot of people don’t have much moral compass of their own. They’re not evil, but there’s little good in them either; they draw their ethical stands from their surroundings. If their surroundings are pushing hateful ethics which say it’s OK, or even good, to oppress and bully some group, they’ll embrace that. There are scads of ‘em in the comments here; they’ve been immersed in religious communities with vile immoral points of view and it never occurs to them to really think about on what basis something should be called “wrong”, they just accept what their religious community says it is. But these religious communities have had normative effects on the broader society, and there are nonreligious bigoted communities as well. Every step that signals “No, this is not a majority viewpoint, it’s not an accepted viewpoint, it’s a viewpoint with negative consequences” tells the people with no real morals of their own that their social context is saying NOT to ostracize, bully, or oppress LGBT people. So then when they go with the flow, the flow they go with will be in a more positive direction. They won’t understand why they’re now NOT being bigots any more than they understood previously why they WERE, but they’ll end up believing it for the same reasons many now believe evil things about gays–because it’s the social consensus.
    So yes, by all means create fear in others who might share his point of view.

  13. tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Yes, Eich did the right thing by stepping down. Given that more than 50% of the population supports gay marriage, Eich’s opinions on gay marriage were in opposition to the majority opinion of the browser using public. His opposition to gay marriage had become an issue, which prevented him from effectively doing his job. The situation is even worse when we look at younger users, being under 30. In that age group, 73% support gay marriage:

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-3-out-of-4-americans-under-30-support-same-sex-marriage-new-poll-finds/politics/2012/12/05/55464

    So had Eich not stepped down, his views on gay marriage not only would have continued to be an issue for Mozilla, but Mozilla would have risked losing an overwhelming majority of users under 30, who eventually will become the Mozilla users of tomorrow.

    There are those who will blame this situation on gay activists. That’s as foolish as blaming Paula Deen’s plight on black people. Just as non-black people can be offended by Paula Deen’s racism, heterosexual people (the majority of whom now back gay marriage) were also offended by Eich’s anti-gay bigotry.

    CEOs such as Eich, and others in the public eye, such as Paula Deen, are required to know which way the wind is blowing in order to do and keep their jobs. When they fail at that task, the blame lies squarely on their shoulders. The blame does not lie on the groups they have discriminated against, whether those groups be black or gay.

  14. Tony Wilks on April 6, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Hi all:
    I made an earlier comment starting: “The fact that Brendan Eich has been forced to resign over his stand against homosexuals and lesbians is crazy! ……”

    But now I have had time to re-think the matter of homosexuals and lesbians through more thoroughly – and I now realize that the so-called ‘Gay’s’ can eventually save the World. If all the other nations follows the UK’s stance and promotes same-sex marriage – then these happy couple’s won’t be producing babies and the World’s population will fall away dramatically. This will mean there will be no food shortages anywhere – less energy will be consumed so the drop in CO2 greenhouse gases will stop the World overheating – the oceans will cease to be polluted – and all the big corporations who make millions out of manufacturing aircraft, cars, electrical equipment and other products deemed essential for our current lifestyle will go out of business. A further benefit is that Microsoft’s and Mozilla’s browser’s won’t be required as there will be no one to communicate with. So in a hundred years time there won’t be any people living on planet Earth – it will just be overrun by animals. That might make it an ideal target for intergalactic travelers looking for a place to set up home – the males of their specie would then have their version of intercourse with females – and the population would increase. Of course – that couldn’t happen if they were ‘Gay’ – could it?

  15. Van on April 5, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    Jim,

    Although we disagree on the LGBT issue, I just want to thank you for allowing anonymous comments on your posts, especially for this topic and because of the current moral and political climate of this country.

    • Jim Lynch on April 6, 2014 at 2:22 am

      No problem, you’re welcome.

  16. Howard Spackman on April 5, 2014 at 11:16 pm

    I also supported California’s Proposition 8 and similarly donated $1,000 to the effort. The proposition passed despite the oppositions incredible funding advantage. And I continue to support the proposition, even though it has been overturned by a rogue court.

    After proposition 8 passed, gay activists got hold of the donor list and tried to destroy the lives of every significant contributor. At a very personal level, gay activists tried to get my friend fired from his banking position for making a $1,000 donation. I have similarly heard some call for Mr. Eich to be completely drummed out of Mozilla. In other words, extreme gay activists would deny those who disagree with them the means of supporting their families. Fortunately, I have a job that they cannot easily attack. During the campaign, Prop 8 was often referred to as Prop Hate by the opposition, and supporters were frequently called bigots and intolerant. Today, it should finally be clear that extreme gay activists are the ones who are intolerant and hateful.

    All proposition 8 did was define marriage in California as the union of one man and one woman – it was not hate filled. None of the people I know who supported the proposition have animosity towards gays. I personally voted for two gay candidates here San Diego in the last election, Carl DeMaio for major and Dwayne Crenshaw for City Council. It is sad that gay activists cannot be equally tolerant.

    One of the things I dislike about your article is its condescending nature. You stated, “I just hope that the next time something like this happens people will offer the person in question the opportunity to learn and grow beyond where they were years ago before simply condemning them. Condemnation without the possibility of forgiveness precludes any hope of reconciliation between human beings, and reconciliation is absolutely necessary if we are going to have a better society.” Here you infer you are on the moral high ground and that Mr. Eich is the one who needs repentance and forgiveness. I can only conclude, then, that you are not interested in an open dialog as you appear to be unwilling to consider that Mr. Eich might in the right.

    If anyone is interested, I will share in detail why I supported proposition 8 and why I still support the traditional definition of marriage. Any takers?

    • Van on April 5, 2014 at 11:22 pm

      To disagree with the LGBT group period is considered hate-filled and bigoted by members of the group.

    • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 12:10 am

      “All proposition 8 did was define marriage in California as the union of one man and one woman – it was not hate filled.”

      You & Eich both supported an unconstitutianal law, which restricted the civil right of marriage to one group, while denying the same civl right to another group. Neither you, nor Eich, nor anyone else gets to cherry pick who is, and who is not, entitled to civil rights. Who do you or Eich think you are, that you get to dictate who does and does not have civil rights?

      And absolutely it is hate-filled, because if gay people marry, it has no effect on you whatsoever. Why do you support denying a civil right to others that has exactly zero effect you?

      “And I continue to support the proposition, even though it has been overturned by a rogue court.”

      How is the court ‘rogue’ when courts all over the country are busy striking down similar laws, for similar reasons, thus affirming the court decision in Prop 8?

      It’s so simple to understand. Public opinion is against you and those of your beliefs, because we homos left the closet long ago. So now, when you send this kind of hate down the pike, you don’t risk just offending me and other homos. You risk offending our parents, our siblings, our friends and everyone else who knows and loves us. And make no mistake about it. They do love us, which is why they get offended over things like this.

      Your and Eich’s bigotry could only fly with the masses as long as we remained hidden in the closet. Now that we are out and everyone knows us, they all want for us the same things they have for themselves. You and Eich both lost the battle, but you are living as if we homos are still in the closet. That train left the station long ago.

      • Howard Spackman on April 6, 2014 at 7:30 am

        You mistakenly assume that it is impossible for someone to love another if he doesn’t accept the other person’s point of view/life style. That is just not true.

        Prop 8 was first declared constitutional by State courts. Gay activists and liberal politicians hand picked a federal judge who they knew would declare proposition 8 unconstitutional. Governor Brown and the State Attorney General then refused to defend the law when it went before the supreme court. The supreme court did not rule proposition 8 unconstitutional, they instead dodged the issue by ruling that the organization defending proposition 8 did not have standing. I, of course, disagree with the activist judges who have declared such propositions unconstitutional.

        I wish you would make your arguments without name calling. Is it possible for you to make your points without calling me a bigot.

        You are naive if you believe that redefining marriage will not impact me. Following is a letter I sent to members of the supreme court in support of proposition 8 that includes the impact of redefining marriage on everyone in the country. Your assertion that redefining marriage will have no impact on people of faith is patently false.

        Here is the letter, minus the opening paragraph.

        ** The simplistic argument for gay marriage **

        The main argument given for redefining marriage is that men and women have no control over their sexual orientation and it is wrong to deny them the privilege of marrying the person they love. Those who advocate gay marriage have an advantage because this argument is relatively simple and emotional. On the other hand, the arguments for keeping the traditional definition of marriage are more involved and require a higher level of reasoning.

        ** Nature, itself, favors traditional marriage **

        For completeness, I will begin by stating the obvious. Nature itself favors traditional marriage because the union of two men or two women will never result in the birth of a child. Male and female bodies were made to come together to produce offspring.

        ** An exercise in reasoning **

        A useful reasoning technique that can be applied to this subject is to consider the extremes. The first extreme is a world where every couple is heterosexual, healthy, and happily married. In this world, every couple would be capable of producing offspring, and every child would be raised by a loving mother and father. This world would have no difficulty sustaining itself.

        The second extreme is a world where every couple is homosexual, healthy, and happily “married”. In this world, no couple would be capable of producing offspring on its own. To continue the human race, lesbian couples would have to rely on artificial insemination, and gay couples would have to pay women to accept artificial insemination, carry the baby to term, and give the baby up after birth. Every child would be denied either a father or a mother, and no child would be raised by both of its biological parents.

        This second world has significant challenges. First, it significantly discriminates against men – it is very easy and cheap for a woman in a lesbian relationship to receive artificial insemination, while hiring a woman to have a baby is a difficult and expensive proposition. This, along with the natural instinct of women to have and nurture children, would likely result in a large majority of children being raised by lesbian couples. In this society, most children would have no male role model in the home, and men’s role in producing offspring would be largely reduced to donating sperm. And if lesbian couples stuck with today’s two child norm, the society would not be self-sustaining – the population would nearly halve with each generation. Like it or not, men who chose to partner with another man more or less abdicate their right to have and rear children.

        For these reasons, heterosexual unions are preferable to homosexual unions. THEY ARE NOT EQUAL OR OF EQUAL VALUE.

        ** Common myths **

        Following are myths that a person has to accept in order to support the redefinition of marriage.

        Myth one: there is no significant difference between men and women (other than sexual plumbing), and children do not benefit from having both a mother and a father. Studies and common sense indicate that this simply is not true. Males and females differ physically, mentally, and emotionally. I am just beginning to read two books that talk about the significant differences in male and female brains (footnotes 1 and 2), and the footnoted websites below detail the important role that fathers play in the rearing of children. (footnotes 3 and 4). I personally know single mothers who do everything possible to give their sons positive male role models to make up for a missing father. In my opinion, any person who argues that boys and girls don’t need male role models is terribly naïve, and the best male role model is a loving father who interacts with his children daily.

        Myth two: all a child needs is a love. While love is important, it is not sufficient. There are many qualities/traits that a child needs to develop, some of which are more effectively taught by a mother and some of which are more effectively taught by a father. For example, a father is best qualified to teach his son how to understand and discipline his male nature. (It is almost impossible for women to fully understand male nature.) Children also benefit from seeing the healthy interaction between a husband and wife.

        Myth three: sexual orientation is fixed at birth. According to Dennis Prager (footnote 5), my favorite talk show host, mens’ sexual orientation is probably fixed, but womens’ sexuality is more fluid and can be more easily influenced by society. The claim that women’s sexuality is fluid was backed up by an Oprah Winfrey show several years ago entitled, “Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women”. Another example is a college student that I heard on a radio talk show who admitted that she was only interested in boys in high school, but due to indoctrination at college decided to try a same sex relationship. She now considers herself bisexual. An article entitled “Understanding Females’ Sexual Fluidity” further confirms sexual fluidity in women. (footnote 6) I question, however, Mr. Prager’s claim that sexuality is largely fixed in men. The B in LGBT stands for bisexual, indicating that at least a percentage of the population can go either way. I have also heard that male-male sexual activity is higher in prisons than in the general population. We also do not know the effect of indoctrination of boys at a very young age. (The gay movement is trying to have public schools teach children as young as kindergarten that homosexual relations are equal to heterosexual relations.) The bottom line is, societal influences can and will impact sexual behavior, and we don’t know how much effect changes in societal standards will have.

        Myth four: the fight for marriage equality is equivalent to the fight for racial equality. The problem with this comparison is that there is absolutely no difference between a black male and a white male, except the color of their skins, but there is a great deal of difference between men and women. Also, even if a person has an inclination towards the same-sex, it is still a choice whether or not act on that inclination.

        ** Proposition 8 does not discriminate **

        All proposition 8 does is define marriage in California as the union of one man and one woman. Anyone can participate in marriage by marrying someone of the opposite sex. But people are also free to enter into any other type of relationship they choose; these other types of relations should just not be recognized as marriage, which they are not. The needs of gay couples can and should be achieved through other means (other than redefining marriage).

        ** The gay movement’s goal **

        The ultimate goal of the gay movement is to force every institution and every person to accept homosexuality as equal in every way to heterosexuality. To reach their objective, they are already working to have public schools indoctrinate our children, beginning at kindergarten and against the wishes of many parents. The gay movement will attack freedom of speech and freedom of religion, if necessary, to obtain their objective. They will also trample on the rights of parents. If the supreme court decides that gay marriage is a constitutional right, the next step will be to pass laws that make it illegal to take a position against homosexuality. Even saying that traditional marriage is preferable will be considered hate speech.

        ** Likely consequences of redefining marriage **

        1) Schools will become tools of indoctrination. Children will be taught in public schools that gay and straight relationships are of equal value. Children will be encouraged, as young as kindergarten, to explore their sexuality to determine if they are straight, gay, or transgender. Children will be told that when they grow up they can chose to marry either a girl or a boy. Teachers and students will not be allowed to read books that highlight heterosexual families without also reading books that highlight homosexual families. All of the above will result in sexual confusion among children.

        2) Freedom of speech and freedom of religion will be attacked. Laws will likely be passed that define any criticism of the gay lifestyle as hate speech and will include significant penalties. Churches may even be forced to perform same sex marriages.

        3) The movement to blur the distinction between boys and girls will advance. Bills have already been proposed in California that would essentially make it illegal to have separate bathrooms for boys and girls.

        4) It is likely that other types of marriages will become legal; e.g., polygamy. If the only criteria is love, then why should a marriage be restricted to just two people.

        5) The number of homosexual relationships will increase because societal influences do impact behavior. Promiscuity will also increase.

        ** Defense of Religion **

        The gay movement agues that it is wrong for Christians to say that homosexual behavior is a sin since gay people have no choice about their sexual orientation. However, almost all of the commandments in Bible require men and women to overcome their natural tendencies/inclinations. These commandments include thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet, turn the other cheek, and forgive all men their trespasses. My church teaches men and women to absolutely abstain from sex before marriage and to be completely faithful after marriage. By nature, men especially are not monogamous; any honest man will acknowledge that he has strong urges to be with other women. The fact that a person has a tendency towards a certain behavior does not make that behavior right or acceptable in God’s eyes. In this life, every person has a cross to bear. Churches should not be reviled for adhering to Biblical teachings.

        Some argue that religion is no longer relevant. A frequent theme in movies is, “follow your heart”. The problem with this philosophy is that heart is a fickle thing, and following your heart will result in constantly shifting standards. The Bible has great wisdom and provides a solid foundation upon which a society can build. Sadly, most youth today have never read the Bible.

        Religious people today do not try to force others to live by their standards. On the whole, religious people love and are tolerant of those with different points of view and different values. It is possible to love those with whom we disagree.

        ** Separation of Church and State **

        The left frequently argues that basing laws on religious values is a violation of the “separation of church and state”. But the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution. The 1st amendment simply states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The reason the founding fathers added the 1st amendment was to prevent the federal government from declaring a state sponsored religion, as has been done in other countries. But it was never intended that laws could not be based on religious values. By the left’s reasoning, laws that outlaw murder and theft would violate the “separation of church and state” because the Bible states “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal.”

        Leftism is, in very many respects, a religion with its own dogma. (footnote 7)

        ** Gay activists are the ones who are hateful and intolerant **

        Gay activists frequently accuse those who support traditional marriage of being intolerant. But from my experience, gay activists are the ones who are hateful and intolerant. The gay movement is attempting to destroy any organization or individual who supports traditional marriage. An example is the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), an organization that has blessed the lives of millions of boys for over 100 years. Instead of starting their own scouting organization, gay activists are determined to force BSA to change its values and policies or drive them out of business. On a more personal level, a gay activist tried to get my friend fired from his job for donating money to the Prop 8 initiative. Gay activists similarly vandalized many churches during the prop 8 initiative. The left frequently calls supporters of traditional marriage “homophobes” and “bigots.” They despise people of faith and are doing everything they can to undermine religion.

        ** Activist courts **

        Proposition 8 was passed by a significant majority of Californians. A single activist judge, who happens to be gay, overturned the will of the people by declaring proposition 8 unconstitutional. In my opinion, it is ludicrous to argue that a societal standard that has been honored for thousands of years is unconstitutional. Instead of using the courts to force their will on the people, gay activists should instead make their arguments in the public square and then launch an initiative to overturn proposition 8.

        ** Boy Scouts, a rallying point **

        As stated previously, the gay movements goal is to force everyone to conform to their views. If necessary they will try to destroy any organization or individual that refuses to comply. The best example is the Boy Scouts of America.

        The BSA is a quasi religious organization where the vast majority of its troops are sponsored by churches. It has been in existence for over 100 years and has blessed the lives of millions of boys. It teaches great values and helps young men develop character, knowledge, skills, and discipline through merit badges and outdoor activities. I was a boy scout in my youth and have served in scouting for most of my adult life. It is a great organization. Because it is a quasi religious organization, it holds to traditional Biblical values.

        For over 30 years now, the gay movement has tried to force this organization to change its policies or drive it out of business. They have organized protests, boycotted business who donate to the BSA, and filed lawsuits. Their most recent tactic is to try to take away its tax exempt status in California through SB 231, which just recently passed committee and will go to the general assembly for final vote.

        My question is, why don’t they expend their energy to start their own scouting organization instead of working so hard to tear down the BSA. About 50% of the population supports the gay movement today, and there are plenty of companies that would provide financial support. Parents could then choose whether to send their boys to the BSA or the new scouting organization. The answer, of course, is that they are not really as interested in blessing the lives of boys as promoting their point of view. The militancy and absolute intolerance of the gay movement towards the BSA should be a wake up call to every American. What is wrong with allowing for freedom of religion and freedom of choice.

        ** Conclusion **

        I implore the supreme court to uphold the constitutionality of traditional marriage in California. The courts should not usurp the will of the people in this matter. I also plead with my fellow citizens to carefully consider the arguments for keeping the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one women. Redefining marriage will have a dramatic impact on our society; in my opinion, a very negative impact. Redefining marriage is not as benign as gay activists would have you believe. I would also encourage everyone to read the Bible and attend a church or two before discounting religion.

        Foot notes:
        1. The Female Brain, Louann Brizendine, M.D.
        2. The Male Brain, Louann Brizendine, M.D.
        3. http://blogs.psychcentral.com/family/discuss/929
        4. http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm
        5. http://www.dennisprager.com
        6. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/understanding-females-sexual-fluidity
        7. http://www.creators.com/conservative/dennis-prager/democrats-policies-based-on-dogma-hopes-dreams-not-reality.html

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 1:20 pm

          “Is it possible for you to make your points without calling me a bigot.

          heterosexual unions are preferable to homosexual unions. THEY ARE NOT EQUAL OR OF EQUAL VALUE.

          these other types of relations should just not be recognized as marriage,

          Religious people today do not try to force others to live by their standards. (!!!)

          gay activists are the ones who are hateful and intolerant”

          I will leave it as an exercise for the readers to judge from your own statements whether you are bigoted or not.

          In the meantime, there is medication available to treat your paranoia.

          • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:36 pm

            Still turning everything into a personal attack, ironically throwing accusations at others for daring to state their opinion, while display the exact symptoms of what you are accusing others of.

            I am not holding my breath for you and your likes to grow up and argue objectively and in a sane manner without responding like a 8 year old with Tourette’s. I gave up on waiting for that to happen.
            Best of luck to you in your life, pal. You really need it.

            • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 5:09 pm

              Quoting his own statements which clearly demonstrate his own bigotry hardly constitutes a personal attack.

              You, and those who believe as you do, are now marginalized in society, because an overwhelming majority of the population do not agree with you. Deal with it.

              • Huh? on April 7, 2014 at 11:16 am

                How do you get to 59% being overwhelmingly in support of something? It’s 9% over 50/50. And if (as in my case) there are more people who have in the past been sympathetic to gay people’s aspirations, who now- based on the facist tactics of this bunch (who have revealed themselves to be exactly the same as those they are opposing) start to question that support- you may not even have a 9% majority. But judging from the attitude to this I am seeing on line that won’t concern most in favour- as long as thier version of reality carries- who cares about majorities anyway? Just impose your will.

              • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 1:27 pm

                “How do you get to 59% being overwhelmingly in support of something?”

                In the under 30 age group the rate of support is greater than 70%.

                “Just impose your will.”

                The public is imposing their viewpoint, which is to reject the bigotry, just as the bigotry of racism is rejected.

                These views are now marginalized in society. This will continue as the under 30 age group ages.

      • BB on April 6, 2014 at 7:50 am

        “You & Eich both supported an unconstitutianal law, which restricted the civil right of marriage to one group, while denying the same civl right to another group.” Firstly, discussion about rights misses the main point, which is the question of what is *good* for society and for individuals. Secondly, none of those who supported prop 8 were denying anything to anyone. Nobody (baring the age restrictions) is barred from marriage. A homosexual man is treated in the same way in the law as anyone else: if he wishes, he can find a good woman to be his wife, and marry her; just a lesbian can find a good man and marry him. OK, so you don’t want to. But that does not give you the authority to redefine marriage away from its principle meaning and purpose to fit you (just as, for example, the man who has a relationship with his daughter does not have the authority to redefine the meaning of the word `incest’ in law so that he is no longer regarded as incestuous. I don’t mean to equate incest with homosexual activity — merely offer an analogy).

        “And absolutely it is hate-filled, because if gay people marry, it has no effect on you whatsoever.” It’s clear that it has had an effect on people such as Mr Eich, but that’s not the main point. Opposition to “same-sex marriage” is not based on harm done to ourselves, but to the wider society and in particular our children. It completely changes what is meant by marriage (as I will discuss below); in particular it completely changes the purpose of marriage and the reason for the state to recognise it. This means that, according to the law, children and young adults will no longer be taught what marriage is and what is required of them to build a successful marriage — they will be taught something completely different instead. Of course, this harmful re-definition is already part of popular culture; what this does is fully enshrine it into law. Our society needs its children to be raised well; divorce, single parenting, fostering can all be devastating to the development of the child (and, while there is still insufficient evidence and therefore no good studies into the effects of children being raised a same sex couple, the least bad studies so far — Regnerus and Allen — indicate that its effects are similar to the other ways of depriving a child of at least one of its parents. Men and women are not on average the same either physically or, more important, psychologically — though there are of course, a few exceptions. The mother and father each bring something different to the family, and the child needs both of those inputs. A man — whether gay or straight — cannot be a good mother — or, at least, it is only exceptionally rare and with great difficulty; a woman cannot be a good father. The two partners in a same sex relationship are too similar to easily offer these different perspectives that the child needs.) The same-sex marriage bandwagon, however, diverts the focus from the needs of the children to the desires of the adults. That is bad. (It is also wrong to describe it as “equal marriage”. Equality means that “like should be treated as like”; by using the phrase you are begging the question that a same sex couple is similar to an opposite sex couple with regards to those things essential to marriage. That is precisely the matter under dispute.)

        Returning to the original post. “What motivated him? What was going through his head? Was it fear? Religious beliefs? Or something else?” It surprises me that you didn’t do the research into the arguments used by those opposed to the re-definition of marriage; they are published widely enough. Few would have been motivated by the emotion of fear. Certainly religious beliefs play a role for many, but partly that is in the sense that the same process of reasoning that lead us to accept Christianity (or some other religion) also leads us to a particular world-view which makes the harms of same-sex marriage obvious. The reasoned arguments, however, do not depend on any religious presupposition. I cannot speak for Mr Eich, but I can speak for myself.

        Traditionally, marriage can be defined as the life-long and complete sacrificial union of a man and woman characterised by sexual activity established by promise and which is fulfilled by the procreation and nurturing of children. Note that this definition is complete, as it describes all four causes: the material cause, a man and woman; the formal cause, the life long sacrificial union characterised by sexual activity; the efficient cause, the vows made at the start of the marriage; and the most important of the final causes, the procreation and raising of children. Note also, that, as always, the final and efficient causes are interdependent on the formal and material causes. The procreation and good raising of children is only possible for a man and woman in a life-long sexual union. A same-sex couple cannot procreate children. Any children that they raise will be torn from at least one of their parents, to the child’s detriment. Therefore, we cannot simply change “a man and a woman” into “two (or more) people of any sex” and leave the rest of the definition intact; most importantly, we change the final cause and therefore the purpose of a marriage and the measure of what makes a good marriage. (Incidentally, sterile couples are not a counter example: the case is different. The formal and material causes are determined in part from the final cause; a union between a man and a man violates the right form of the marriage; if either the husband or wife are infertile, then it means that the marriage will be unfulfilled and therefore not good, as the final cause cannot be met — though with no moral guilt because the evil comes from accidental damage to their bodies rather than their intentions — but the requirements for the formal and material causes are still met, so it still remains a marriage. Even if valid, the counter-example would not support same-sex marriage, but merely suggest that we should restrict marriage to the fertile.)

        This, of course, also motivates why the state has an interest in recognising marriage. If it were just about two people having a ceremony and then shacking up — what interest is that to anyone except themselves? But because the natural family unit propagates the human race, the wider society has the responsibility to recognise and support them.

        Of course, traditional marriage is already under considerable tension. Easy divorce, single parenting have both undermined it — and I wish that people would focus more on opposing those, as the evidence is now firmly in about the damage they do to children (I consider them both to be far more serious problems than same-sex marriage). But same sex marriage is important because it enshrines into law the dangerous misconception that marriage is merely about the love (to be specific, I mean eros — the English word love is too broad and contains several sometime mutually contradictory meanings) and feelings of commitment of the two adults involved. Note that there is no mention of eros or feelings of commitment in the definition above. They are, of course, good for a marriage — but not an essential part of it.

        So now we have, in effect, the re-definition that marriage is the union between two people for the purpose of celebrating their love and feelings of commitment. And this is dangerous. Real marriage is self-sacrificial. It is not always pleasant, sometimes you just have to get on with it. There will be periods when you stop loving each other (in the sense of eros); there may be periods when you can’t stand each other; but it doesn’t matter because your own satisfaction is not the purpose of the marriage, so you both learn to adapt and get on with it and eventually you get over the problem. But new marriage is about the satisfaction of the parents as a couple — that is its only remaining purpose as we must remove the reference to procreation. It is selfish rather than selfless. And as soon as problems occur, then there is a divorce and ruin.

        To adequately prepare someone for marriage — and it is a process that takes an entire childhood — it is necessary to train them in virtue, and to do that it is necessary to teach the purpose of life in general and marriage in particular. And this is what is now illegal in those places where same sex marriage has passed. We cannot say that marriage is primarily about the procreation of children; we cannot teach husbands-to-be that marriage requires them to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their wives and families, because that is no longer what marriage is about. Of course we can still teach our own children at home (at least until the thought-police moves into our houses), but the wider society will be teaching the opposite creating much confusion. And those who are not raised in the homes of traditional marriage supporters will only get the wrong message, to their eventual detriment and harm and the even bigger harm of the generation after them. True, bad teaching about marriage has been happening for the past thirty years at least; but now it is enshrined in law that teachers in public schools have to teach the wrong definition of marriage. It is not even as though you are setting up a separate institution with a different name. By this redefinition, you are destroying marriage, and with it our society.

        No society that has undermined the institution of marriage has survived for more than a few generations (see the work of Unwin, for example; there are others as well, but that is the one that comes to mind). We would be fools to think that ours would be any different. And that is one reason why same-sex marriage is opposed.

        On a separate note, same sex marriage also undermines something else which is important — the biological link between parents and children. It used to be that the state recognised that children `belong’ (not sure that is the right word) to their married parents; it recognised something that comes from nature. Now the state has to determine that children belongs to their parents; since same-sex marriage by nature violates the biological link, so something else must take that place. The state has therefore implicitly given itself the authority to decide which children go with which adults. If it has to do that for same sex marriages, and it treats same sex marriages in the same way as opposite sex ones, then it means that two parents do not raise a child because of their biological rights, but because the state (or some other authority) choose to assign it to them. And if the state has that authority, then it also has the authority to choose otherwise. The difference is subtle, but it removes the principle protection the family has from the state. Hopefully, that new authority the government has given itself will never be abused. But, unfortunately, one of the facts about human nature is that every authority in time tends to become corrupted.

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm

          “Firstly, discussion about rights misses the main point, which is the question of what is *good* for society and for individuals”

          HAHAH! Do you seriously expect us to believe you can shove aside constitutional rights so cavalierly? No wonder you people are losing in courts all over the country.

          By the way, in what way is SSM NOT good for society and individuals? I won’t hold my breath waiting for your evidence. If no evidence could be shown in the prop 8 case, I am sure you have none to show either.

          • BB on April 7, 2014 at 4:05 am

            You missed my point. You keep citing “civil right”, but that is not good enough because you haven’t established that you morally have such a “civil right” (or indeed any civil rights at all). Firstly, as pointed out above, you have as much of a right to get married as I did, (assuming that you are a man) you simply have to find a woman willing to accept you. You are not denied anything.

            Perhaps the Euthyphro dilemma puts my point clearest. Is same sex marriage a civil right because it is good or is it good because it is a civil right? In the first place, you are saying that the civil right is supported by strong objective reasons; in that case it is redundant and you should give that reason instead. In the second place, you say that civil rights are arbitrary, in which case they are worthless. It’s the problem with all arguments from authority (except the authority of God, where the objective basis — human nature, the laws of physics etc. comes from the arbitrary choice of God, so its not really a dilemma). You cannot just arbitraily claim a civil right or human right without any argument from first principles to show that it is also a good and expect people who value logic and sound reasoning to listen to you. You haven’t argued anything, merely asserted, and that makes those who don’t know better think that you don’t have an argument.

            You are asserting that someone has the civil right to marry whomever they please. We say that, at best, people have the civil right to marry anyone of the opposite sex, and have produced arguments (some of which are briefly summerised above) why opposite sex marriage provides a social good which “equal” marriage does not; and therefore opposite sex marriage ought to be preserved. To claim that our restriction is discriminatory you have to demonstrate that a same sex relationship is identical to an opposite sex relationship in all matters related to marriage. I and others have argued that due to the distinctions and complementary nature of men and women that is not the case unless you redefine marriage so that a) it no longer means what people have always said that it means; and b) it loses all its social utility, so it becomes worthless and there would be no point in worrying about it in the first place.

            Our objection is that you are not extending an institution or “civil right” but destroying it and replacing it with something completely different.

            Sure, you can define words as you please. But unless those definitions have meanings consistent with what other people (including our ancestors) meant by the same word, communication becomes impossible and words become useless. Redefining the word does not change the physical reality of marriage or its necessity. But it does change the legal conception of marriage; and if the law does not correspond to the real world then, sir, it is an ass. You can redefine a word as you please, but that does not mean that every redefinition is good and useful.

            And do you really think that it is now legally possible to express the real meaning of marriage in, for example, a public school? Won’t the teacher, no matter how good they are at their vocation, just be hauled off to the courts and lose their job? And I imagine that you would support that. That is what I meant when I said that it is no longer legally possible to prepare people for marriage in a public institution. Those teachers (and bakers, and photographers, and flower arrangers, and counsellors etc.) are the people who are going to suffer first, either through the persecution of the courts or by being forces to keep quiet in the face of a great moral evil, and everyone in subsequent generations is going to suffer on account of it.

            • Purple Library Guy on April 8, 2014 at 3:01 am

              “You just have to find a woman, hur hur hur”–I cannot believe the mentality of people who think that idiocy is cute or, worse, some sort of genuine argument. Yeah, and you have the right to get gay married, you just have to find another man. Would that do the trick for you? No? Then quit talking like an imbecile.
              I’m not gay, but I do have an axe to grind in all this. People who talk as if marriage is a religious thing which religious authorities or beliefs get to decide what it is or isn’t are implicitly denying my marriage, which was a secular one done by a marriage commissioner. Seems like you’d want to claim what I have is a “civil union” or something ’cause there wasn’t a priest involved. Well guess what? I’m married, my wife is married to me, and anyone who wants to say their religion has a look in on whether that’s the case or not can go shove their heads back up the orifice it belongs in to muffle their nonsense.

            • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 2:11 pm

              “You keep citing “civil right”, but that is not good enough because you haven’t established that you morally have such a “civil right” (or indeed any civil rights at all).”

              You can not morally justify denying the civil right of marriage to homosexuals. No one can, which is why anti-gay bans are being struck down all over the country.

              “Firstly, as pointed out above, you have as much of a right to get married as I did, (assuming that you are a man) you simply have to find a woman willing to accept you.”

              Why would I marrry a woman given I am homosexual? Pretending your personal preferences should somehow apply 100% to everyone else is a logical fallacy produced by your own ego. I am free to eat chocolate ice cream, even if you prefer vanilla.

              “To claim that our restriction is discriminatory you have to demonstrate that a same sex relationship is identical to an opposite sex relationship in all matters related to marriage.”

              Read the court case overturning prop 8. It’s all there and addresses every logical fallacy you have presented here.

              “Our objection is that you are not extending an institution or “civil right” but destroying it”

              Those who believe as you do have had ample opportunity to show evidence of how gay marriage harms you in court case after court case. Yet, strangely, no such evidence has been produced. The claim gay marriage harms society is not backed up with any evidence whatsoever. Eventually, no one took Chicken Little seriously either.

              “Won’t the teacher, no matter how good they are at their vocation, just be hauled off to the courts and lose their job?”

              Anti-discrimination policies in the workplace have been around for some time. If you don’t like the policies, get a job somewhere else.

              “Those teachers (and bakers, and photographers, and flower arrangers, and counsellors etc.) are the people who are going to suffer first, ”

              Right, because it is better for bigotry to spread in society than for the prejudiced to face the consequences of their bigotry. But yes, you are right, it is the bigots who suffer under anti-discrimination laws: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765636407/New-Mexico-photographer-loses-gay-marriage-case.html?pg=all

              “by being forces to keep quiet in the face of a great moral evil,”

              You’ve yet to prove gay marriage is a great ‘moral evil,’ outside of running around and screaming the sky is falling if gay marriage exists. Your bigotry is the greater evil. You are just ticked you can’t spread it without consequence now, because the majority of the population disagrees with your bigotry.

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 12:52 pm

          “To adequately prepare someone for marriage — and it is a process that takes an entire childhood — it is necessary to train them in virtue, and to do that it is necessary to teach the purpose of life in general and marriage in particular”

          In a free society, not a one of us is required to live by how you define ‘life in general.” In a free society, none of us is required to define OUR marriages as you define YOURS.

          “And this is what is now illegal in those places where same sex marriage has passed.”

          No it isn’t. You can carry any hair-brained ideas about ‘life in general’ or ‘marriage in particular’ that you choose. You are free to speak about it publically. Your problem is your view is now in the minority, because support for SSM is greater than 50%. You carry a minority opinion but wish it was treated as a majority opinion, not realizing your beliefs are quickly going the way of the dodo. Check the stats on public support of SSM of the under 30 if you doubt this. (<70%)

          "We cannot say that marriage is primarily about the procreation of children"

          Sure you can. Your problem is people know it isn't true. Married couples are not required to have children. Two people past child bearing age can marry, even if they no longer can have children. Infertile couples can marry, etc and so on. Neither the state, nor many in our society would view such marriages as 'illegitimate,' as you do, simply because the marriages produce no children.

          Besides, gay people can and do have children, no different than infertile couples do.

          You really need to get the court decision which overturned prop 8 and read it. All of your 'points' raised did not show one justification to deny the civil right of marriage to one group of citizens, while reserving it as an exclusive right for another group of citizens.

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 12:57 pm

          “one of the facts about human nature is that every authority in time tends to become corrupted.”

          Does that include authorities on same-sex marriage like you?

          • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:30 pm

            You still cannot argue in a civil manner, you immediately turn this into personal attacks.

            This is why it is not possible for most of us to accept people like you. This high and might attitude, yet you have no leg to stand on.

      • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:29 pm

        Please take a look at the facts, and then read the Constitution, or have someone explain to you its basics, and then you can mention the Constitution as if it was in agreement with your mob like actions.

        The fact that prop 8 was declared in California unconstitutional by a homosexual judge alone makes your argument weak and as ignorant as it can be. The same judge REFUSED to consider the fact that his own sexuality may have been impairing his impartiality, and then the supreme court of the United States refused to review the case based on technicalities and did NOT issue a ruling telling you that this law was unconstitutional.

        If that prop was upheld by a Christian or Conservative judge, you and your fellow homosexuals would have been up in arms. But for you, homosexuals can do no wrong, they are never biased or prejudiced and would not go around the Constitution or circumvent freedom of speech and religious freedom.

        I guess you are way impaired by your feelings about this to see through the political correctness and the technicalities.

        The slew of accusations, name calling and lynch mob you and your likes engage in and support will one day come back to haunt you. You scored few temporary victories, and now you are gloating for causing damage, misery and loss to others. Mark my words, what you do to others will one day be done to you.

        I said it in another post, some of the homosexuality opponents argued that homosexuality is a mental condition and can be treated, and in fact offered therapy. Actions and the anger issues that you and your fellows displayed gives that theory plenty of ground.

        You seem to be under the assumption that when we disagree with your life style then we must be hating you and want to cause harm to you. You are being brain washed by your LGBT mafia. Plain and simple.
        Almost all of us, have either a homosexual friend, relative, or plenty of co-workers, ..etc. Show me one single person that was treated differently because of such life style?
        I am asking for examples today in the US. If you want to bring examples about such struggles in 3rd world countries, then spare us the waste of time.
        There is not a single credible incident of someone being discriminated for being gay on record in the last 10 years in the US, while there are plenty of incidents on record of gay people fraudulently claimed discrimination in order to get attention and for financial gains. The most recent one was that bar waitress the ex-marine. It is hard to argue with facts that show that the LGBT mafia and their mob are the most intolerant people that want the world to bend over and change their faith, lifestyle and everything they stand for to please them.
        Sorry, I cannot be part of anything like that.
        I will defend your right to have your own opinion and your life style even when I disagree with it, but I will not allow you to force them on me. Period.
        If you want to be accepted, then start acting in a civil manner, disagree peacefully and express your point of view. Name calling, lynch mobs, smearing, character assassination and other thug tactics will get you nowhere, they only give you temporary ground, yet you will lose in the end.

        Your life style is your own business, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to force them on others, nor force them to live by your rules.

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 5:22 pm

          “The same judge REFUSED to consider the fact that his own sexuality may have been impairing his impartiality,”

          It didn’t impair his partiality. Actually, he went well out of his way to let the opposing side present every argument they wished, to protect in cases of further appeals. Had you read the decision, you would know this.

          But even if that were not this case, your point is still invalid, because gay marriage bans in many states have been and are still being struck down for being unconstituitional:

          1. Federal judge strikes down Michigan’s gay marriage ban
          http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/justice/michigan-gay-marriage/index.html

          2. Texas gay marriage ban struck down
          http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down

          3. Michigan’s Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down by Federal Judge
          http://time.com/34143/michigans-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down-by-federal-judge/

          Don’t you think it’s time to face the fact your religious opinions do not give you the right to dictate who is and is not entitled to civil rights?

    • Fred McKinney on April 6, 2014 at 2:50 am

      Howard, as a Christian, I’m with you and very much a supporter of traditional marriage, too. I too wish Eich would’ve hung in there at Mozilla. And I’ve always been puzzled as to how the gay activists claim to be the “tolerant” ones when they’ve proven to be anything but — and if Eich’s resignation from Mozilla isn’t the most glaring example of that, then I don’t know what is.

  17. Nicolas on April 5, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    Repent? For having an idea of giving to future generation a society as good as the one we got?

    Is this America ?

  18. Votre on April 5, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    I think his decison to step down might have been motivated by two things:

    First, this issue was being handled in such a way that would ultimately hurt Mozilla in the long run. And while many in most communities believe in “redemption and forgiveness,” not everyone does. And once this sort of campaign starts, it usually continues on forever since some activists are always willing to ressurect something like this, and dismiss the validity of any apology, at a moment’s notice.

    That would only hurt Mozilla if allowed to continue. And I think he demonstrated his commitment to Mozilla by stepping down rather than have the spectre of that hanging over the organization for as long as he remained at the helm.

    The second reason, I think, is far more personal and complex.

    In an era where the US intellegence community and the US federal government (these are two separate but very real governments as far as I’m concerned) have begun to demonstrate the dangers of allowing anything a person ever did or said be used against them – mostly at whim to satisfy an ever changing political climate – it’s frightening to see how the larger tech community is now indulging in much the same behavior.

    If somebody in 2014 needs to worry about every legal thing they said or did as far back as 2008 – why bother? Especially when it’s being placed in a context totally divorced from the original act.

    Mr. Eich contributed to a political campaign designed to put forth a pubic ballot initiative as allowed by law. He did not fund a covert hate group, or anonymously contribute to some political action group that carefully protects the identity of it’s donors. What he did was perfectly legal and well within his rights as a US citizen.

    And just because the LBGT community has achieved major legal and mindshare victories recently doesn’t change that. And to demand somebody’s resignation for backing the ‘wrong horse’ in a political showdown strikes me as being both self-serving and dangerous for the precedent it threatens to set.

    Most people, unlike activists or dedicated members of a given community, don’t live their lives under a ‘seige mentality.’ They hold fairly weak opinions on most things – with an occasional foray into a more active opinion which may lead them to sign a petition or make a contribution to some cause. And these opinions and commitments change and evolve over time. COntrast this with activists who tend to wave their flag and fight on – including long years after the battle has been won.

    To hold somebody fully accountable – under present prevailing social attitudes – for an opinion they held, or a contribution they made over 5 years ago is questionable at best in the absence of this person showing a similar level of ongoing support and activism for it.

    That sounds more like “The Bloody Spanish Inquisition” rather than an invitation to dialog to me.

    I don’t blame him for deciding it’s simply not possible to defend yourself for a “crime” you didn’t commit. Just ask anyone who was ever accused of being a witch.

    • Nicolas on April 5, 2014 at 10:33 pm

      If you mention a B in LGBTQ, it seems like you owe it to tri and quad sexual to be represented in your acronym.

      • Votre on April 5, 2014 at 10:51 pm

        Feel free to add as many letters as there are variants. I inadvertanly left out a P for ‘pansexual’ which I just learned about. :-))

  19. Abdel on April 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    It’s a question of convictions. And you have no right to ask a person to apologize or ask for forgiveness because of their convictions. Period.

  20. Adam01time on April 5, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    the first time a Leader or a CEO has to bring up sexual orientation They should be fired. One the average person today does not care what you do in your own space. If the average person to day in the work field has a problem with gay at work they should be asked to leave or F_king deal with it.

    Last Time I looked who gave a crap about my dog dig no one does. run the company or grow up.
    Pride is a bitch.

  21. John on April 5, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Yeah right! I’ve been always neutral towards gay marriage and gay people. That being said it was not right to bash him like that just because he doesn’t share the idea of gay marriage. Is somebody not allowed to express his opinions and stand up for it (in his case by donating)? What is wrong with you gay people? You reserve the right for yourself to fight for your believes but the opposition is not? You gays did not yourself any good here.

    • tellin_int on April 5, 2014 at 6:45 pm

      People took issue with his bigotry, in the same way they took issue with Paula Deen’s bigotry. It looks to me like the CONSEQUENCES OF BIGOTRY are much the same, in both cases.

      • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:43 pm

        How about your own bigotry?

        Chasing people around for DARING to have their own opinion?
        Paula Dean was accused (fraudulently) of being a racist, and the lynch mob went after her.

        Being gay is a choice (no matter how you bring up fake, snake oil type pseudo science stating otherwise), being black is not a choice. Homosexuality and race are not the same.
        Give yourself a break, grow up, start arguing like adults, and maybe then you’d be taken more seriously. Personal attacks, screaming, throwing accusations and showcasing your own bigotry while accusing others of alleged bigotry earns you nothing but mockery and dismissal.

        In short, look in the mirror, heal yourself before pretending to be the one who is trying to heal others.

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 5:30 pm

          “Chasing people around for DARING to have their own opinion?”

          You certainly have the right to be bigoted. Others also have the right to point out your bigotry.

          “Being gay is a choice (no matter how you bring up fake, snake oil type pseudo science stating otherwise),”

          I will patiently await evidence for both your credentials in this area, as well as published studies which back up your claim.

          What I will not do, is hold my breath as I wait for your to come forth with your evidence.

  22. riot on April 5, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    Hosting a witch hunt and having someone fired (or forced to resign/step down) because of they’re relegious beliefs is a big violation of that persons rights. Yet for some reason it’s okay? The first step for a person or group such as homosexuals to gain equal rights is by respecting the rights of others. I hate homosexual right activist and not because they are homosexuals, but because they are willing to step on everyone else rights to gain their goals. To be honest they are not the only equal rights group that acts this way. People don’t want equal right, they want laws in their favor, and I’m sick of it.

    • sandor on April 5, 2014 at 5:29 pm

      You are right. Catholics, orthodox Jews and muslims who practice their faith and follow the teaching of their faith, automatically cannot be CEO,s since they would/should act as Brendan. So this is clearly religious discrimination. Secularism against religion.

    • tellin_it on April 5, 2014 at 5:30 pm

      “I hate homosexual right activist and not because they are homosexuals, but because they are willing to step on everyone else rights to gain their goals.”

      Your problem is, it’s not us homos causing this tidal wave of change in society:

      “The greatest level of support in the new report came from Jewish Americans, 83 percent of whom favor marriage equality…

      …A slight majority (57 percent) of white and Hispanic Catholics now favor same-sex marriage,……

      …Support among white mainline Protestants nearly doubled, from 36 percent in 2003 to 62 percent in 2013….

      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0226/More-religious-Americans-support-gay-marriage-than-a-decade-ago-survey-finds-video

      So instead of accusing us homos of stepping on the rights of others, you might wish to speak with your fellow believers who disagree with you.

      • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:19 pm

        Mainline Protestant churches are no longer salt to the world. They’re churches in name only.

        • tellin_it on April 5, 2014 at 10:31 pm

          Surely you can do better than ‘no true scotsman.’

          • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:32 pm

            Surely you can do better than turning everything into personal attacks.

            • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 5:15 pm

              Attacking the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy in his argument IS attacking his argument.

      • riot on April 6, 2014 at 3:38 am

        >>>Your problem is, it’s not us homos causing this tidal wave of change in society:
        It’s not my problem. It’s Brendan Eich’s problem. I couldn’t care less.
        When the heck were we talking about this tidal wave of change in society? I was pointing out how in my opnion Eich was done wrong, which has little to do with my opnion of gay marriage. What’s my opnion? I believe God gave us free will. If God gave us freedom to choose then who am I (or my government) to take that freedom away. Do I believe homosexuality is a sin? Yeah, but lots of things are sin, and it’s our right to choose to do wrong or right.

        One last point. I don’t see beer drinks getting all mad because christians think drinking is wrong. They just ‘you can believe what you want, now shut up and pass the beer.”

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 1:04 pm

          “When the heck were we talking about this tidal wave of change in society?”

          You blaimed Eich’s situation on homosexual activists in this statement:

          “I hate homosexual right activist and not because they are homosexuals, but because they are willing to step on everyone else rights to gain their goals.”

          By demonstrating evidence Eich’s opinion is now a minority viewpoint in this society, it showed the foolishness of blaming Eich’s position on gay activists, instead of the reality that his viewpoint is in the minority.

          Try a little harder to keep up, ok?

          • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:44 pm

            Still attacking the person and not the argument. You are just pathetic.

            • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 5:38 pm

              It really bothers you when you can’t get away with blaming this on gay activists, because it’s so easy to document the massive public support behind us now.

  23. tellin_it on April 5, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    Oh yeah, it’s so new for bigotry to have consequences. How quickly we’ve forgotten Paula Deen.

    The only thing new here is the idea that ‘free speech’ should not have consequences.

  24. eric on April 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Good Bye Firefox and all products Mozilla, tolerance is a to way street, when freedom of opinion is lost so is freedom. Mozilla you are OPEN SOURCE, by not allowing dissenting opinions you are MS CLOSED.
    uninstall complete.

    • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:20 pm

      +1

  25. Duncan on April 5, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    I’m marking the notify of followups box as this is interesting stuff… I’ll take this post as an invitation to honestly state some things I wouldn’t say in many contexts, simply because it wouldn’t be polite to do so. But it’ll be interesting to see what the response might be… or even if this gets posted (I guess I couldn’t blame Jim or site admins for deleting it as too wide ranging and/or controversial).

    Yes, I am a (somewhat traditional) Christian and do indeed believe that acting on one’s gay impulses to “consumation” is wrong, *BUT* no more so than /any/ sex or even “heavy petting” outside of marriage is wrong. The primary difference would be that gays don’t have the chance of (what I believe is, regardless of what it’s called) God sanctified marriage, but then again, I’m a never-married straight single nearing 50, which means I’m not putting gays in a much different boat than I myself am in. Neither am I saying I’m perfect in this regard.

    OTOH, I consider deliberately going out and drinking, without making arrangements for someone else to take you home first and thus very literally knowning that you’re risking both your own life and that of others when you drive home drunk, is a far greater “sin”. Yet drinking and driving is already illegal, and I’d not make drinking (or for that matter pot smoking) itself illegal, because… well, read on…

    Admittedly the next paragraph is a bit US centric in some aspects but I believe the principle holds everywhere, as the paragraph beyond brings out…

    OTOH, I believe that the United States in particular has the position of freedom it does because of the relatively high regard for separation of church and state, which can be argued is rooted and was made historically possible in the Christian belief of salvation not by works, but by faith. If works won’t save a person, than legislating morality won’t save a person, but you can’t legislate faith. In that context, legislating things that most (traditional) Christians might believe are wrong can’t help and in fact might make things worse due to the rebellion against authority that many people go thru at some point in their life. Unfortunately it seems many Christians that might otherwise profess a belief in salvation by faith seem to lose sight of it when it comes to politics and attempting to legislate things like gay rights and abortion, and appear to believe they can somehow legislate salvation after all, because “doing otherwise is wrong!”

    This, to my thinking anyway, is one reason many nations (including the US at times) have such a hard time with personal freedom, because whatever their religion, to the extent that a large minority to a majority believe that it’s possible to legislate morality and thus ensure salvation by works, it becomes very difficult to NOT attempt do do so, unfortunately by definition reducing freedom for an individual to (legally) choose.

    Based on the above, on the topic of gay marriage, to me the ideal would be a state that had about as much to do with marriage as with baptism, recognized as another Christian sacrement, but one the state, thankfully, generally stays out of. The state could have its civil unions and they’d have all the same legal recognition that state recognized marriages have today, but the state wouldn’t recognize or care about marriage at all as that would be the domain of religion and the various churches, much as baptism normally is. Then the state could regulate civil unions however it felt the need, and individuals could go to whatever church or temple or atheist unchurch or whatever, and get married following whatever religious or otherwise customs and beliefs they wanted. If the Mormons or somebody wanted poligamy and multiple spiritual marriages, let them have it within their church, and gays could likewise have their marriage within their church, just as straights do, but the state wouldn’t be involved at all, all it’d recognize would be the separate civil union that people may or may not enter into at roughly the same time, as basically a legal contract with certain obligations and legal recognitions. The two would be entirely separate concepts. That’d make legal divorce proceedings rather simpler as well, since it’d simply break the legal civil union contract, without religious implications unless whatever church one belonged to happened to believe there were such. Christians will recognize this principle as (holding up a coin with Ceasar’s face on it), “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.”

    Unfortunately I don’t see that ideal happening any time soon and given the less than ideal situation we have with the legal and religious meaning of marriage conflated to a large degree, yes, state recognition of a legal contract called by the state “marriage”, since that is recognized as legally different than the civil union that it would have been better if it was all the state recognized in the first place, is for the best.

    As for Brendan Eich, the ideal there would have been for someone, ideally him, to realize “Hey, this isn’t such a great idea, I can’t properly represent the message of inclusiveness that Mozilla stands for unless I repudiate this action and I’m not prepared to do that, so I gotta turn down this invitation.” BEFORE he became CEO.

    Given the fact that didn’t occur, unfortunately, everybody is left dealing with what /did/ happen, and I think stepping down was indeed for the best.

    But I’ve read that he’s not simply stepping down as CEO, but is also leaving Mozilla entirely. I think that’s unfortunate, as while I don’t believe he could properly represent Mozilla as CEO without repudiating that donation, there’s absolutely no reason he can’t stay with Mozilla in his former capacity. That’s where freedom of speech comes in, and by keeping him in his former non-lead position even as he steps down from CEO, Mozilla would be properly recognizing both freedom of speech and the fact that its gay users have rights and feelings as well. Additionally, he /is/ a founder, and regardless of his suitability or the lack thereof to lead, it’ll be a shame to lose him entirely for that reason too.

    Duncan

    • Gyffes on April 7, 2014 at 2:49 am

      I’m sorry, Duncan, that was entirely too intelligent a comment: you will have to leave teh Interwebz until you learn how to communicate less cogently, less fair underlay, and with more blind passion.

      • Gyffes on April 7, 2014 at 2:50 am

        Christ, freaking auto correct…. * less fair-mindedly

  26. lozz on April 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    After a decade of using Mozilla I’m already looking for my next browser and email client after the Brendan Eich fiasco.

    The writing is very clear on the wall for Mozilla.

    Brendan Eich was acclaimed as the best possible choice to lead Mozilla into the future, but now he has resigned.

    Mozilla has shown that they have become much more concerned about being rabidly PC than than producing the best possible browser and email client in the world.

    When I use the Linux kernel everyday I couldn’t care less about who Linus Torvolds might have donated a 1,000 bucks to, years and years ago. All I care about is that it is the best and most secure code that money can’t buy.

    Mozilla has set its feet firmly on the path to its own destruction, but I, for one, won’t be around to watch the train-wreck.

    • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:25 pm

      The problem with looking for the next browser is that there aren’t a whole lot of choices. Chromium is buggy, Chrome is good but is proprietary, Midori is okay, Qupzilla is nice but it’s based on Mozilla, Internet Explorer only runs on Windows, and Safari is slowly becoming OS X only.

      Same issue with email clients, although email client software seems to be a dying breed.

      • Onan the Barbarian on April 7, 2014 at 8:38 am

        I run Web (formerly called Epiphany), Gnome’s web browser.

  27. Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:10 am

    Did it ever occur to you that you and the rest of the LGBT community are the ones who need to be educated? It’s not okay to be gay. I’m so tired of the LGBT agenda. The Bible says what you do is a sin and abnormal. You and others who fall under the LGBT community are free to sin. God always allows the freedom to choose between good and evil. If you choose evil, then you will be judged accordingly.

    And for all those who spout the word “inclusiveness,” what is going on in this country is not inclusiveness. Many say they want or desire inclusiveness, but those who are against the LGBT group are excluded.

    • David in the O.C. on April 5, 2014 at 12:23 pm

      1. We don’t live in a theocracy. So it doesn’t matter what your *chosen* religious beliefs have to say about homosexuality.
      2. It is okay to be gay. Over 50 years of medical and psychological research have shown that sexual orientation is innate, and homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality.
      3. It is not okay to use the Bible as some sort of scientific journal about human sexuality. It isn’t one. We are slightly more intelligent than those that lived 2,000 years ago. Our society is NOT obligated to promote your ideology of ostracizing gay citizens, regardless if you believe that God is giving you a big thumbs-up to do so.
      4. Straight people are also sinners (according to your Bible). I find it disingenuous that gay people are labeled evil, but sinning straight people get a free pass. Homosexuality isn’t some *super* sin that trumps every other sin.
      5. As for “inclusiveness”. There is nothing inclusive about demonizing gay people, and passing laws that discriminate against them, all because your book of fairy tales gives you permission to do so. Mr. Eich donated $1,000 to promote a campaign that took away a civil right that was granted to gay Californians. Please explain how that falls under the category of inclusiveness? I think the word you’re looking for is “intolerance”.

      • LordLizard on April 5, 2014 at 4:39 pm

        Your comments are exactly why I have went from a tacit ‘live and let live’ to a stance of opposition. Yes “straight” people sin … but that doesn’t mean they do it 24/7 … after this vile and vicious action against Brendan perpetrated by the LGBT, rest assured I will be eying whom I choose for projects / work / front facing representative. As for Mozilla … parting will not be without its issues, but part we must

        • tellin_it on April 5, 2014 at 5:06 pm

          “after this vile and vicious action against Brendan perpetrated by the LGBT,”

          “Some 53 percent of the 4,509 Americans surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute said they supported gay marriage, up from 32 percent in 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it.

          http://www.charismanews.com/us/42928-despite-christian-opposition-suhttp://www.charismanews.com/us/42928-despite-christian-opposition-support-for-gay-marriage-surgespport-for-gay-marriage-surges

          Seriously, quit lying. Since 53% of the population is not gay, that 53% level of support does not come exclusively from the gay community.

          • Onan the Barbarian on April 7, 2014 at 8:44 am

            53% of the population didn’t ask for firing Eich.

            • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 1:31 pm

              Why would Mozilla risk offending the majority of the population with Eich as CEO? It’s the same reason Food Network refused to risk the majority of the population with Paula Deen.

              Words and actions have consequences, even in the case of exercising free speech. For those in the public eye, this is particularly true.

      • sandor on April 5, 2014 at 5:50 pm

        You are perfectly right. But democracy also means that through democratic means I should be able to effect, which way society goes. It seems a gay person has a right to push for gay marriage but an opponent to gay marriage do not have a voice, or punished if he lets it heard. That is not democracy. As we say in my country, liberals are permissive to all view point, as long as it agrees with theirs. In a democracy, I will accept opposing viewpoint, even if I do not agree with it.

        • tellin_it on April 5, 2014 at 9:44 pm

          “But democracy also means that through democratic means I should be able to effect, which way society goes”

          Do you seriously believe democracy/majority vote can overrule the Constitution? Because if you do, your belief is ENTIRELY INCORRECT:

          1. Texas Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional – http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20140226-federal-judge-rules-texas-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional.ece

          2. Oklahoma Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Unconsitutional – http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/oklahoma-gay-marriage/index.html

          3. Federal Judge Strikes Down Michigan’s Gay Marriage Ban – http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/21/justice/michigan-gay-marriage/index.html

          Sorry, but you are wrong. Democracy does not give you the right to deny civil rights to those you do not like. Your claim that it does has been overruled repeatedly by the judiciary.

          • dragonmouth on May 16, 2014 at 5:49 pm

            “Do you seriously believe democracy/majority vote can overrule the Constitution? Because if you do, your belief is ENTIRELY INCORRECT:”
            It is you who are ENTIRELY INCORRECT. The Constitution has been overruled by the vote of the majority 17 times so far, not including the original 10 amendments.

        • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:30 pm

          Saying America is a democracy is a lie. We are a republic. A republic has certain laws/rules that cannot be voted out by a simple majority. A democracy means anything can be changed by a simple majority.

      • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:45 pm

        “We don’t live in a theocracy”

        We don’t live in a thugocracy either.
        Get over yourselves and learn to co-exist.

    • Gyffes on April 7, 2014 at 2:53 am

      The Bible (largely a work of fiction, by the way) mentions taking care of the poor roughly 10,000 times. It mentions homosexuality 4 times.

      Why is it you “Christians” focus on the four? Taking care of the poor not fun enough for you?

  28. Tony Wilks on April 5, 2014 at 9:58 am

    The fact that Brendan Eich has been forced to resign over his stand against homosexuals and lasbians is crazy! And – don’t all of you lot who call yourself “Gay” start moaning about my comments. In the UK, many of the BBC presenters. commentators and thousands of so-called film and TV stars have come-out and said they are gay – and we, the rest of humanity, should accept it it. Well we don’t!. I am a 77-year old hetrosexual married male with two daughters and three lovely grandchildren – and I’m also a former member of the UK military when, in the 1950′s, it was a court marshal offence to be homosexual. As a Christian, I think it should still be – but – I am ready to accept the needs and beliefs of so-called gay’s – but they should not thrust their ideals on tyo me and like-minded people as “natural”. Mozzila was started by the gifted talents of Brendon Eich – it may now well fail because it goes o it’s gay way and follows stupid Cupid!

    • mvh on April 5, 2014 at 10:09 am

      He was not “forced” to resign over his “stands”. He resigned because he chose too. After it was reveleaed in 2012 that he donated the money, he stayed on. Though many would have wanted him removed, he wasn’t in a position that matters. He didn’t represent Mozilla to the world. As a CEO he would, and that’s un acceptable, and surely not to a body like Mozilla.

      Eich had taken part in vicious and hateful campaigns against equality and human rights, including donations to Pete Buchanen and more. There’s a complete contradiction between what he says and what he did so fat. He was the wrong person for this position, so I’m glad he resgined.

      • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:15 am

        There is nothing vicious about being against the LGBT agenda. As I said above, God says what the LGBT group does is sin and also says that homosexuality is abnormal.

        Why is it unacceptable to be a CEO and to be against the LGBT group? I have the Bible to back up my beliefs and world view. From where do you draw your beliefs and world view?

        • mvh on April 5, 2014 at 12:54 pm

          Has someone who can actually read the original text, I can tell you that this and other excuses extreme right religios fanatics seem to love reusing is ridiculous and of course, wrong. Theological literalism is embarrassing and to be honest, most of the people that think there’s a gay agenda (rather than a fight for human rights) seem to be those who pretend they are for freedom of speech in supporting eich. It’s all hipocracy and double standards, not to mention plain ignorance.

          • tellin_it on April 5, 2014 at 11:15 pm

            “there’s a gay agenda”

            Does it include matching my shoes to my belt, or am I doing it wrong?

      • Nicolas on April 5, 2014 at 10:41 pm

        Hi, what does Mozilla has to do with sexual likings ?
        Also, what do you think about Israel, gun control, and Islam?

    • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:18 am

      Mr. Wilks, if you’re a Christian, you shouldn’t be ready to accept the needs or beliefs of the LGBT group. What they do and are is against the teachings of the Bible. Do not be ashamed for what the Bible teaches and what you believe.

      • really? on April 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm

        Oh please. The entirety of your religion hinges on a talking serpent, no different than Winnie the Pooh or Bambi.

        • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:32 pm

          One day you will find out different. You are being blinded by Satan or your own ignorance.

          • tellin_it on April 5, 2014 at 10:52 pm

            Careful there! I’m tight with Thor. You wouldn’t want Him to zap you with a thunderbolt, would you? Not that I have proof for any of this. You just have to accept it ‘on faith.’

          • Gyffes on April 7, 2014 at 2:55 am

            My invisible sky guy is better than your invisible sky guy. I know thus is true because he told me so.

    • David in the O.C. on April 5, 2014 at 12:33 pm

      Acceptance and tolerate are not the same thing. I’m not exactly sure how you are being forced to “accept” homosexuality. You don’t have to be friends with gay people, you don’t have to marry a gay person. I’m sorry it is such an immense burden on you to coexist on a planet where some people are attracted to the same gender. One wonders how you make it through the day without being compelled to have sex with a gay man.

      In a secular society you are obligated to tolerate people that are different from you. Just like the rest of us are obligated to tolerate someone that is ignorant about human sexuality and the concept of sexual orientation. Bigotry, even under the guise of religious beliefs, is still bigotry.

      • LordLizard on April 5, 2014 at 4:47 pm

        Bigotry, which seems the base platform for the LGBT is evidenced daily, I think now we have a reason to attack and force resignations for those that support SSM…

        • Ha on April 5, 2014 at 6:20 pm

          You certainly have the right to complain, which IS free speech.

          Mr. Eich’s case was simply that: A lot of people complained, and he resigned.

          There’s nothing wrong with people calling for boycotts of organizations they don’t agree with, or feel are being led by wrongheaded individuals.

          Interesting you chose the words ‘attack’ and ‘force’ though.

          • Nicolas on April 5, 2014 at 10:47 pm

            when it goes against a democratic duty, there is something wrong with calling for boycotts.
            This is the foundation of your legal system, kid.

            • Ha on April 6, 2014 at 3:10 am

              I’m no kid, and you have no idea what my legal system is. It’s pretty clear you don’t know what yours is either.

            • Purple Library Guy on April 6, 2014 at 3:45 pm

              So . . . you’re saying people should be forced to buy things they don’t want to, at least in cases where the sellers represent political ideas they disagree with?

          • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:49 pm

            “Mr. Eich’s case was simply that: A lot of people complained,”

            That couldn’t be more incorrect.
            It was couple of gay developers and few employees in the already not so doing well Mozilla.
            Please do yourself a favor and do some research before you state things like this.
            Head over to input.mozilla.org and see for yourself. Up to yesterday, close to 25,000 posts protesting this action and mentioning dropping use of Mozilla products because of this.
            Yes Eric was attacked and forced to leave. Some of us prefer to call things as we see them, kid.

            • Purple Library Guy on April 6, 2014 at 11:51 pm

              Attacked. So . . . they beat him up? Trapped him in an alley and kicked him around calling him a “****ing gay-hater”, put him in the hospital? Maybe sexually assaulted him? Like they do to gays? No?
              Then you’re saying “They said nasty things to him, it shouldn’t be allowed!” Well, if the nasty things they said amounted to libel, it isn’t allowed and he can sue. Short of that, it’s free speech, just like your nonsense.

      • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:40 pm

        We are being forced. Look at what happened to Brendan Eich. Basically, it’s getting to the point that you can’t say anything negative about the LGBT group or you risk being ostracized. How is that not being forced? Some companies now threaten termination for even showing a dislike for anyone from the LGBT group.

        Tolerating people who are different from me is a lot different than tolerating the LGBT group. They want society to accept their sinful lifestyle and to be provided benefits as though they are equal to opposite sex married individuals. They are free to sin, they aren’t free to demand acceptance and benefits.

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 2:05 am

          “Basically, it’s getting to the point that you can’t say anything negative about the LGBT group or you risk being ostracized.”

          You carry a minority viewpoint now. What did you expect?

          • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:56 pm

            “You carry a minority viewpoint now. What did you expect?”

            Please tell me you were joking?
            You cannot be THIS ignorant or disconnected from reality?

            YOU and your supporters are in the minoroty. The powerful, rich with resources and violent minority, backed by few corrupt politicians and judges. That does not make you majority, genius.

            The passage of Prop. 8 sent a clear message, in overwhelmingly liberal California that most people disagree with your views and lifestyle. How did you SUDDENLY became a majority?
            It is OK to ASSume that you are right, but self-righteousness is not OK.

            Here, let me help. Do yourself a favor, head over to input.mozilla.org and see for yourself. Almost 25,000 posts, 90% opposing this fascist style of forcing others to resign, lose jobs and endure financial and social strains because a tiny minority of intolerant self-righteous bigots like you and your colleagues who want thugocracy installed.
            In other words, grow up, and get a clue.

            • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 5:44 pm

              “YOU and your supporters are in the minoroty.”

              How does 59% of the population backing gay marriage constitute a ‘minority?’

              http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/gay-marriage-support-poll-104272.html

              “You cannot be THIS ignorant or disconnected from reality?”

              Have you ever heard the word ‘projection’ used in a sentence?

            • Purple Library Guy on April 7, 2014 at 12:02 am

              “The powerful rich with resources”?!
              People on the right have peculiar ideas of what those with money use it for. Here’s a hint: People with money use it to get more money. Elite lobbying is about getting giveaway banking deregulation, or bailouts, or low taxes for investment income, or getting their pipelines through so they can make a mint on bitumen. They don’t care about gay issues one way or another in any organized way, ’cause they make no difference to profits.

              Similarly the bizarre notion common on the right that there’s big money behind scientists’ claims about climate change. To the contrary, big money likes the status quo, business as usual; plus, some of the biggest money is in oil, coal and natural gas–they want to keep selling it, which they can’t if we get serious about climate change. Big money really wishes scientists talking about climate change would go away, and has funded major PR campaigns to try to make them do so.

              People get some strangely dysfunctional ideas just by not asking the basic question “Who benefits? Who makes money from this? Who loses money from this?”

          • Onan the Barbarian on April 7, 2014 at 8:49 am

            So it’s ok to discriminate people who hold a minority viewpoint?

            I’m amazed to see how you can’t even understand how wrong you are.

    • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 2:03 am

      “they should not thrust their ideals on tyo me and like-minded people as “natural”.”

      We homos aredn’t doing that to you. Nature is, in thousand of species:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

      • John Smith on April 6, 2014 at 4:57 pm

        So you want o be like animals.
        Thanks for confirming that.

        Go ahead and do so. Some of us prefer to stay as we are, humans.
        No wonder you act like that. Thanks for the warning.

        • tellin_it on April 6, 2014 at 5:57 pm

          “Some of us prefer to stay as we are, humans.”

          Humans ARE animals. Why else do you think we share 70% of our DNA with chimps?

          “So you want o be like animals.”
          Nature creates Adam & Steve. All I did was show the proof of it.

      • Onan the Barbarian on April 7, 2014 at 9:03 am

        That argument could be used to claim that homosexuality is “natural”. It can’t be used to claim that gay marriage is. Many animal species display homosexual behavior, but no species form MONOGAMIC COUPLES of same sex individuals.

        Besides, animals display a lot of other “natural” behaviours, including cannibalism, killing their partner’s offsprings, and so on. That doesn’t mean it’s ok for men to behave as they do.

        • Purple Library Guy on April 8, 2014 at 2:51 am

          Actually, we do have cases of animals forming monogamous gay relationships–basically, the same kinds of animals that form monogamous straight relationships. Mostly birds . . . I remembered a case of penguins at a zoo, googled and found articles about gay penguin couples in three different zoos and none were the one I remembered hearing about. One of them in Denmark was given an egg and they’re raising a baby penguin together. There are also a gay vulture couple in a Jerusalem zoo, much to the horror of the orthodox Rabbis.

          But in any case your argument isn’t an argument. If you’re saying gay marriage isn’t natural because marriage isn’t natural, that’s all fine, but then once again there’s no basis for differentiating the gay kind from the straight kind. Working as an accountant isn’t natural, but it would still be unjust to say white people have the right to do it but black people don’t.

          • Onan the Barbarian on April 8, 2014 at 7:47 am

            Animals in captivity display all sorts of unnatural behavior, like eating their excrements. And it is well known that straight men sometimes behave as homosexuals when they are imprisoned, but when they are released, they stop doing that. So that’s an unnatural behavior induced by constrained living conditions. When you find gay penguins or vultures in a free environment, then you’ll have a point.

            I never said that marriage isn’t natural. Quite the contrary. There are a lot of monogamic species, just as there are a lot of species which don’t form stable couples. And there are also lots of species who display behaviors that are clearly unacceptable for men. So you can’t argue whether gay marriage is or isn’t “natural” based on observing what animals do — but if you do, you should logically conclude that it isn’t, contrary to what the original poster asserted.

            • tellin_it on April 8, 2014 at 1:36 pm

              “So you can’t argue whether gay marriage is or isn’t “natural” based on observing what animals do — but if you do, you should logically conclude that it isn’t,”

              Homosexuality most certainly IS natural, because nature producese homosexuals, many of whom pair off into couples. Just because the majority of the population are right handed, does not mean left-handed people are ‘unnatural.’

              • Purple Library Guy on April 9, 2014 at 12:01 am

                Now there’s a “sinister” argument.

            • Purple Library Guy on April 9, 2014 at 12:50 am

              Marriage is natural. Well, I must have missed all those monogomamous animal relationships where they hold ceremonies officiated by animal justices of the peace. And, on no evidence whatsoever, the claim that there are no monogamous gay relationships in nature. Sorry, yes there are. I expect this book
              http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520280458
              would blow your mind if you managed to read it.

              But your core argument has something to it: There is no necessary relationship between a “natural” action and an “ethical” or “moral” action. Some “natural” actions are wrong, some “unnatural” ones are right. So then, on what basis do we decide what’s right?

              The Golden Rule is a pretty good guide–doesn’t apply everywhere to every thing, no maxim could, but it is really surprisingly extensive. What would it say about gay marriage? Pretty clearly that it should be allowed; it does harm to none, is cherished by those who want it. Doing unto those who want to be married as you would have them do to you if you wanted to be married is pretty clear-cut. On the other side, those against homosexuality period brandish one or two of the “fine print” admonitions in their religious text, which appear without any ethical reasoning to back them up–which would be less odd if they didn’t ignore so many of the other such admonitions and even some of the major prohibitions. When I see an anti-gay person who spends more of their time campaigning against usury, a stoning offense to which whole chapters and lurid stories condemning it are devoted, well, they’ll still be wrong but a little less ridiculous. As to people who want to be not-against homosexuality as such, but to oppose gay marriage . . . that has no ethical base at all. It seems to come down to “But I feel squeamish about it so it must be wrong”. Well, I feel squeamish about heart surgery and about Thai street food involving spider legs, la de flippin’ da.

  29. tracyanne on April 5, 2014 at 9:47 am

    It’s sad that he chose to resign rather than take responsibility for his prior action, the donation. I think it would have benefitted everyone, including himself, to understand what his thinking was then, and how or whether it has changed now. As things stand there is the appearance that his beliefs have not changed, and that although he might well have performed his duties as expressed in his blog, it may not have been something he felt comfortable with.

    • dragonmouth on May 16, 2014 at 6:08 pm

      Yes, Brendan Eich should have been sent to a re-education camp where his thinking could have been corrected to be more Politically Correct. I wonder what the reaction would be if the LGBT crowd was sent to re-education camp to “correct” their thinking? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  30. Josh Reuben on April 5, 2014 at 8:10 am

    This week Brendon Eich (creator of JavaScript && Firefox) was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla by the PC crowd – I wonder if they’ll do same for HAMAS SUPPORTER ( https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/10139431329 ) Miguel de Icaza , CEO of Xamarin (Microsoft’s new best buddy)

    de Icaza has a long history of anti-Israel activity:

    Here you can read de Icaza words supporting Mearsheimer and Walt’s “Jewish Lobby” conspiracy theories http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Oct-01.html

    Here you can read de Icaza words calling Israel a “terrorist state” http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2002/Sep-03.html

    The hi-tech outcry in support of LGBT against Brendon Eich is paralleled by the awkward silence over de Icaza’s anti-Israel campaign.
    up vote this issue on slashdot http://slashdot.org/submission/3464259/hi-tech-double-standards-does-c-on-android-support-kassam-rockets-into-israel … or shrug your shoulders and let this be swept under the rug.

  31. Unreality on April 4, 2014 at 7:42 pm

    Since when is it important in a programming/software development environment that one’s personal opinions or private political contributions throughout all time regarding xyz issue make or break one’s career?? Whatever you may be or not be, whatever you believe is right or not right regarding marriage, sex, love, religion, gun rights, or environmental movements — if it’s not directly involved within a career or directly dictating [with evidence] one’s ability to supervisor, promote, or work with fellow employees — it does not matter…

    …At least he didn’t call anyone “bossy”…

    BTW – I fully support gay rights in marriage, etc. etc… Although I am as straight as the day is long… I have ranted on and on through pages and pages in religious circles about how it’s not possible to dictate how one loves another human — it all falls on deaf ears… and it would greatly behoove the gay community to issue an apology for the unnecessary destruction of a talented programmer’s career… However, I’m sure it will be a cold day in Northern Ecuador before such humility, kindness, and understanding would come from a community that demands those things from all other humans.

    Of course – there are exceptions to the mob mentality — as you have shown yourself to be one…

    • Jim Lynch on April 4, 2014 at 8:15 pm

      You raise a good and valid point about political issues. I remember the controversy that ensued when one of the Linux Mint developers spoke out about the Israeli versus Palestinian thing, it caused a lot of bad feelings and some people stopped using Linux Mint back then as a result. In that situation a developer injected his politics directly onto the Linux Mint blog, and a storm of angry comments ensued all over the web.

      I wrote a column about it back in 2009, and I was amused today to review some of my comments from back then:

      The Great Linux Mint Political Train Wreck
      http://jimlynch.com/linux-articles/the-great-linux-mint-political-train-wreck/

      “For my part, I will continue to review Linux Mint and if I was a regular user of the distribution I’d continue to use it. Why? Because frankly I really don’t care about the developer’s politics, one way or another. People always have opinions on various issues. That’s just humanity. There’s no way to avoid the fact that two or more people are going to part company.

      In this case politics was inserted into a context where it really didn’t make sense. The developer probably hasn’t converted anybody to his cause and he ended up alienating a lot of other people away from the distribution he’s clearly worked so hard on. So what was gained? Nothing constructive that I can see. He seems to have shot himself in the foot and wounded the Linux Mint distribution.

      It would have been better for the developer to post his thoughts on a personal blog and keep it off the Linux Mint site. I understand though that he’s human, just like the rest of us. And sometimes we all behave emotionally rather than rationally. It’s messy and it causes friction but it happens sometimes.”

      This situation was a bit different since the controversy was based on a personal contribution made years ago. Eich never pushed opposition to gay marriage as a cause as CEO of Mozilla, and it wasn’t until much later that people found out about it. So he wasn’t using his position of prominence to push a pet political cause.

      As far as the gay community goes, there really isn’t one monolithic gay community per se. Rather you have many different individuals who do not necessarily agree on everything, including this issue. But I would have preferred that a bridge be built instead of him having to resign over it.

      That depended a lot though on whatever his current position on the issue is and whether or not he was willing to explain himself so people had a clearer idea of where he stands personally. His statement seemed to indicate regret and a desire to adhere to Mozilla’s commitment to principle, but it still didn’t extend far enough for many people to forgive him his past position.

    • Sandor on April 5, 2014 at 7:59 am

      I agree.
      Even go further. When in science and programming political agenda and political correctness have more importance, than professional knowhow, that will make society in that field contra selective and will put the society at disadvantage in competing with societies where there is more freedom in this field.

    • mvh on April 5, 2014 at 10:14 am

      His opinions don’t matter and knowone should care. But when they were made public, he can not head such an organization as Mozilla. It’s very simple. It’s like having a holocaust denier heading the Simon Wiesenthal center, or a pro-life fanatic at the head of Planned Parenthood. This is the real issue, not his rights to old whatever views he has.

      • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:22 am

        “pro-life fanatic”?! What do you call abortionists, then; Florence Nightingales? By the way, it’s “noone,” not knowone.

        • mvh on April 5, 2014 at 1:13 pm

          It’s called personal freedoms, I thought you were all for that. Woman should have a right over their own bodies, and people (like you, or in general) should not have any say. No one forced Eich out, no one is forcing women to get rid of unwanted prefrnacies. It’s a question of choice. A personal choice.

          IMHO you should just put down the stupid bible that you can’t even understand, or read in its original form, and try to think for yourself, for once. It’s very liberating.

          * Typos due to quick iphone typing (appoligies in advance)

          • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:45 pm

            “Woman…own bodies…” That’s a lie. A baby is not part of a woman’s body. It’s a human being and to abort the human being for anything other than saving the life of the mother (and saving the life doesn’t mean standard of living) is murder.

            “…people like you shouldn’t have any say.” Nor should you, or will you, when you stand before God.

            The Bible is the greatest book ever written and has changed my life dramatically. You are only blinded by Satan or your own ignorance.

            “Knowone” is because of quick iPhone typing? Please…

      • NRL on April 5, 2014 at 11:01 am

        Since when did Mozilla become a LGBT advocacy group?

        Sad that an organization like Mozilla wouldn’t place a priority on freedom of speech.

        • Ha on April 5, 2014 at 4:40 pm

          It’s good to know that if a majority of people supported a law to ban Christian marriage, you’d be OK with it because, hey…free speech.

          • Van on April 5, 2014 at 10:47 pm

            Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. It doesn’t necessarily mean you should be able to say whatever you want.

            • Ha on April 6, 2014 at 3:42 am

              As long as I am not hurting people by yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, freedom of speech means exactly that…I can say whatever I want.

              A proposition to ban marriages for homosexuals is no less oppressive or wrong than a proposition to ban marriages for Christians, black people, red-heads, or lawyers.

          • Nicolas on April 5, 2014 at 10:49 pm

            Christian marriage is not part of the law, kid.

            • Ha on April 6, 2014 at 3:13 am

              Nobody said it was, but thanks for trying to share.

      • Onan the Barbarian on April 7, 2014 at 9:10 am

        The Simon Wiesenthal center has the mission to oppose holocaust deniers. Planned Parenthood has the mission to oppose pro-life. Since when is Mozilla an LGBT organization? I thought they were building software.

        • Purple Library Guy on April 8, 2014 at 2:43 am

          So you’re saying it’s OK for people in every organization other than the Simon Wiesenthal center to be holocaust deniers?

          • Onan the Barbarian on April 8, 2014 at 7:52 am

            I’m saying it’s not ok for any organization to fire people, or force them to quit, for their political or religious beliefs, however wrong they might be, UNLESS those beliefs are relevant to the organization’s mission.



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Ads and Amazon

Read about the kinds of ads I run, and the kinds I don't allow on this blog.

Thank You!

Thank you if you've whitelisted this site or made a purchase via the Amazon links, your support is very much appreciated.

Google+ Posts