3 ms·

I love people's ability to have horrible beliefs a lot more than the (now legal) ability to marry my boyfriend, so this is unfortunate to hear. I've always admi

I love people's ability to have horrible beliefs a lot more than the (now legal) ability to marry my boyfriend, so this is unfortunate to hear. I've always admired Mozilla for what it does, a lot more than other companies that get painted as homophobic (Chick Fil A?), so this is too bad. I think he was fine where he was, and his opinions on people matter as much to me as I suspect my opinions matter to anyone else.

karlshea 13y ago
I'm also gay and agree completely. The whole GLAAD contingent can be a little too self-involved a lot of the time.
- hkphooey 13y ago
  Could you please tell us more about GLAAD and the landscape of gay politics? What are the different groups and what are the major issues they (dis)agree on? What would they think of a comment like this, from a prominent British gay critic/writer ? "Most of us... are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewell-Why-I-will-never-be-converted-to-gay-marriage.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...
  - karlshea 13y ago
    It's really no different than any other special interest group. GLAAD has had lots of success in the past and done a lot of good, but now I feel like they are trying to find things to be outraged about, which has become tiring to hear about. When you're going after Dan Savage and Alec Baldwin for "saying the wrong things" when they are clearly LGBT allies I think it's time to reevaluate what's really important. Reading the one "gay news" site I follow sometimes feels like I've stepped into the Women and Women First sketches on Portlandia. I don't really see big divisions other than with the GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans sorts. Most of gay politics seems to be centered on the civil rights issues, otherwise gay people span the political spectrum like any other group. Obviously they lean more towards the Democrats, but I know a fair number of gay people that are Republican. As far as civil partnerships go, my impression (and also my opinion) is that most of us think that while it might be a step in the right direction, it's not really an acceptable solution at least in the US. There are a lot of rights civil marriage brings that civil partnerships don't. I do personally think that if the federal government decided to just not recognize marriages as anything other than a religious ceremony and searched-and-replaced "marriage" with "civil union" in all the laws I would be fine with that.
jonahx 13y ago
There is a difference between having a legal right to horrible beliefs (something most posters here, I think, support), and having an expectation that those beliefs have no effect on your opportunities when you are seeking a highly public job that impacts millions of diverse people. Many of those people, myself included, probably don't buy the party line that you can completely divorce business decisions from deeply held personal beliefs. Would you feel the same way if he'd donated to some far-right group that was against intermarriage between blacks and whites? What about something even more extreme? I don't see how the situation would be fundamentally different, or how your argument that this reaction is "too bad" would no longer apply.
- Einstalbert 13y ago
  I would feel the same way if he contributed a million dollars to something far more extreme, and I am not sure if it would carry any more or less weight if that extremity were suddenly as personal or close to home as is the matter of gay marriage. Some people do like to hide behind the concept that, if you're not gay then why are you having X, Y, Z opinion in this conversation; I wanted to throw it out there that, as a gay man that loves his boyfriend but also loves people's opinions and the right to have them, this seems like a damn shame. Mozilla wasn't going to become some bastion for social counter-productivity just because one man, even in the CEO position, held a certain number of opinions; I trust him more than that, I trust Mozilla more than that, and I trust our ability to find out and handle that if it were indeed to happen.
  - jonahx 13y ago
    I respect your considered opinion, then, even though I strongly disagree with it. I will point that, if you didn't trust him more than that, if you didn't trust Mozilla more than that, and if you didn't trust our ability to sniff out and handle such a situation, then I'm assuming your opinion would be different? If so, it's worth considering that your trust may not be shared by most people, and there are good reasons, in general, for skepticism. It's also worth considering that when the consequences are large, even a small risk may not be acceptable.

karlshea 13y ago

I'm also gay and agree completely. The whole GLAAD contingent can be a little too self-involved a lot of the time.

hkphooey 13y ago
Could you please tell us more about GLAAD and the landscape of gay politics? What are the different groups and what are the major issues they (dis)agree on? What would they think of a comment like this, from a prominent British gay critic/writer ? "Most of us... are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewell-Why-I-will-never-be-converted-to-gay-marriage.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...
- karlshea 13y ago
  It's really no different than any other special interest group. GLAAD has had lots of success in the past and done a lot of good, but now I feel like they are trying to find things to be outraged about, which has become tiring to hear about. When you're going after Dan Savage and Alec Baldwin for "saying the wrong things" when they are clearly LGBT allies I think it's time to reevaluate what's really important. Reading the one "gay news" site I follow sometimes feels like I've stepped into the Women and Women First sketches on Portlandia. I don't really see big divisions other than with the GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans sorts. Most of gay politics seems to be centered on the civil rights issues, otherwise gay people span the political spectrum like any other group. Obviously they lean more towards the Democrats, but I know a fair number of gay people that are Republican. As far as civil partnerships go, my impression (and also my opinion) is that most of us think that while it might be a step in the right direction, it's not really an acceptable solution at least in the US. There are a lot of rights civil marriage brings that civil partnerships don't. I do personally think that if the federal government decided to just not recognize marriages as anything other than a religious ceremony and searched-and-replaced "marriage" with "civil union" in all the laws I would be fine with that.

jonahx 13y ago

There is a difference between having a legal right to horrible beliefs (something most posters here, I think, support), and having an expectation that those beliefs have no effect on your opportunities when you are seeking a highly public job that impacts millions of diverse people. Many of those people, myself included, probably don't buy the party line that you can completely divorce business decisions from deeply held personal beliefs. Would you feel the same way if he'd donated to some far-right group that was against intermarriage between blacks and whites? What about something even more extreme? I don't see how the situation would be fundamentally different, or how your argument that this reaction is "too bad" would no longer apply.

Einstalbert 13y ago
I would feel the same way if he contributed a million dollars to something far more extreme, and I am not sure if it would carry any more or less weight if that extremity were suddenly as personal or close to home as is the matter of gay marriage. Some people do like to hide behind the concept that, if you're not gay then why are you having X, Y, Z opinion in this conversation; I wanted to throw it out there that, as a gay man that loves his boyfriend but also loves people's opinions and the right to have them, this seems like a damn shame. Mozilla wasn't going to become some bastion for social counter-productivity just because one man, even in the CEO position, held a certain number of opinions; I trust him more than that, I trust Mozilla more than that, and I trust our ability to find out and handle that if it were indeed to happen.
- jonahx 13y ago
  I respect your considered opinion, then, even though I strongly disagree with it. I will point that, if you didn't trust him more than that, if you didn't trust Mozilla more than that, and if you didn't trust our ability to sniff out and handle such a situation, then I'm assuming your opinion would be different? If so, it's worth considering that your trust may not be shared by most people, and there are good reasons, in general, for skepticism. It's also worth considering that when the consequences are large, even a small risk may not be acceptable.