Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Software News

OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights 1482

Posted by Soulskill
from the unwelcoming-is-unwelcome dept.
PortWineBoy writes: "The Beeb is reporting that OkCupid is prompting Mozilla Firefox users to switch browsers over Brendan Eich's support of Prop 8 in California in 2008. Users are met with a message stating that OKCupid would prefer no one access their site with Mozilla software. Eich is the new CEO of Mozilla."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, ok... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:52PM (#46632339)

    So it'd be alright if Firefox plastered over every page of sites that didn't support prop8 that they were supporting immoral and disgusting behavior? We have the right to free thought and expression in this country, even if you don't like it.

  • Not a joke (Score:5, Interesting)

    by devent (1627873) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @02:55PM (#46632379) Homepage

    Not April's day joke. But a little bit misrepresentation. Prop 8. was about recognition of marriage by the state of California, it was not about whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Eich wants gay-couples to be outlawed.

    From https://www.okcupid.com/ [okcupid.com]

    Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.

    Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

    Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

    If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.

    However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:

    Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:06PM (#46632521)

    But making a stand against someone because they're gay seems petty...and I'm straight.
    What happened to live and let live?

    Two separate issues, I think.

    From an orthodox Christian perspective, making a stand against homosexual conduct is making a stand for homosexual persons. To orthodox Christians, practicing homosexuality is sin, and unrepentant sin is a path towards eternal destruction. To be "pro homosexuality" would, for such Christians, be like being "pro all-you-can-eat buffet" for morbidly obese people. It's what they want, but (on the Christian view), it's directly contrary to their long-term well-being.

    The "live-and-let-live" issue is quite separate. I don't think there's anything in classical Christian theology that requires Christians to pursue the legislation of Christian behavior.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @03:45PM (#46633021)

    "he meaning of the word 'boycott' can be easy looked up in a dictionary, likely even on wikipedia. The most you can accuse OKCupid for is a 'call for' boycott."

    I wrote "trying to boycott". Close enough for most English speakers, I think.

    "Which I support. That Eich guy should be removed from his position and imho prosecuted."

    Support away. It says a lot about you that you would join a boycott of an entire major product (and all the employees of the project) over one guy's politics.

    Can you say intolerance? Sure. I knew you could.

  • by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:17PM (#46633477) Homepage Journal

    When did marriage become a basic human right? Why is the government involved pro or con with it to begin with? Why is it only limited to two people?

    The government originally became involved in marriage because the family is the building block of society and assisting in the foundation of stable families helps society function well. Now that marriage is seen as being all about and only about the people being married, and them being able to be labelled as such, that is no longer the case. Except prohibitions against polyamory to be next on the chopping block. People are already lining up. This is not about the ability to live your life the way you want.. because no one is preventing that now (and even where that is the case, the laws are being rapidly changed to fix that). It's now about having the ability to be validated by society. As the law traditionally stands, no one's rights are being violated, society just acknowledges that its social and biological bases are a net positive. There are already many, many prohibitions with respect to marriage: You cannot marry a relative, you cannot marry a child, you cannot marry more than one person at a time, and yet every one of these prevents people from living the life they want to live... and for good reasons, most of which also stem from the fact that these kinds of "marriages" are completely orthogonal to propagation of the race, and some are harmful in other ways as well. But it goes beyond that. Marriage is recognized and given a special status because it is the means by which society propagates itself, otherwise it's no different than a two-member club, and we all have the Constitutional right of free association.

    The question I have is this: If any two people are able to declare one another as legal heirs to property, hospital visiting rights, joint tax returns, etc., what rights are being deprived if such a status is not called a "marriage"?

  • by JackieBrown (987087) <dbroome@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:17PM (#46633485)

    And moreover, if Mozilla hired a CEO who said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that black people should be returned to slavery, is it wrong to call for a boycott?

    As much as the religionists try to spin it, Prop 8 isn't much different.

    You really do not see much difference between not giving a marriage licence versus slavery and denying people the right to vote?

  • Re:Wait... wha? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:18PM (#46633507)

    So it makes you feel better that he used his own money to deny another person their rights?

    It's begging the question to refer to gay marriage as a right. Your'e free to assert that, but you're not really engaging in the debate.

  • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:28PM (#46633621) Journal

    You have not been paying attention to me then. I constantly point out that, as a confirmed bachelor with so little interest in relationships that I've never even had a girlfriend (I've rejected dates and made people cry, which confuses the shit out of me), gay marriage increases the percentage of the tax burden that I must cover. All these married people pay less in taxes, but what about people who don't believe in marriage? People who raise children and have a family without a state institution involved, or who just don't engage in that kind of relationship? We're taxed more, and when some section of the population is promoted into that privileged class they pay less taxes and who makes up the bulk of the difference when the tax hikes come back around?

    Marriage exists solely as a societal mechanism to enforce the concept of a nuclear family. In Fredrick Pohl's Heechee Saga, the Heechee don't have marriage and don't form nuclear families; women become fertile, they have sex (or die from arousal stress if not mated with), then they become productive members of society for another year. Men and women don't live together and raise children; their entire society functions as a unit, all working to the betterment of the whole, and so they never developed the need to form protective groups.

    Human marriage binds people through inconvenience. The relationship is long dead after several years, both of them are fucking other people and lying about it, they hate each other, but divorce is hard. For the longest time divorce wasn't even legal: Henry VIII used to execute his wives so he could remarry. Marriage is an institution to forcefully create a fundamentally unnatural group unit of society called "family" as a replacement to the fundamentally natural group unit of society called "tribe".

    On top of that, we give married couples big tax deductions--which become even bigger when they have children, and are not as significant when they have a dual income because women belong in the kitchen and not in the work force. Those of us who aren't married are subsidizing those who are married. With money. We are paying more money, they are paying less. It's as if we started on fair, even ground, all paid our fair share, and then round two comes along and the tax man takes part of our money and gives it to married people. It's the same outcome. Now there are more of them taking our money.

  • by Oligonicella (659917) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @04:39PM (#46633761)
    Along with over half the population of voters. I do believe your definition of asshole is someone who doesn't believe as you do.
  • by harrkev (623093) <<kfmsd> <at> <harrelsonfamily.org>> on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @05:04PM (#46634011) Homepage

    Well, since you brought it up, I am a follower of Jesus. And I take a very pragmatic approach to homosexuality.

    The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin... period... However, as an American, it is not the job of the government to legislate morality. Women are not killed for adultery these days. Drunks are not thrown in prison (as long as they don't drive). It is not the job of the government to make sure that everybody lives a clean wholesome life.

    I can honestly say that if you are gay, I really don't care one bit. Really! You just have to understand that, if the Bible is right, that you will not be able to get into Heaven leading a lifestyle of sin. That includes not only homosexuality, but adultery, drunkenness, lying, anger, etc. If you choose to accept the eternal consequences, do whatever makes you happy. It is really none of my business.

    I do love the stereotyping where you say:

    My religion teaches that you are subhuman scum.

    Nope. Wrong. You are a sinner, as am I. The reality is that we are ALL scum, especially me, which is why we all need Jesus. I have simply tried to turn my back on sin as much as I can and I trust Jesus to take care of the rest. There is NO sin so bad that the blood of Jesus cannot cover it -- all you have to do is trust Him. The TRUE followers of Jesus do NOT think that you are scum. They think that you are worth saving and they want you to be in Heaven too. They do it not out of malice, but out of love.

    Christians come from a completely different world view. The atheist believes that this life is all that there is, so do whatever you want to to make yourself happy, as long as you do not hurt others. The Christian believes that there IS an afterlife, and our job is to help as many people get there with us as they can by turning from ALL sins, and turning towards God.

    The thing that you have to realize is that there are more than a few jerks out there (cough. Westboro Baptist Church. cough. and lots of others. cough.) who have totally forgotten the "love" of Jesus. Those guys are best ignored.

    Now, if you really want to be treated as subhuman scum, try Islam, where homosexuality will get you killed immediately.

  • Re:Wait... wha? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cavreader (1903280) on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @07:43PM (#46635247)

    As long as gay couples are mandated to use the exact same divorce laws why not let them join in the fun known as marital bliss?

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada

Working...