[GuiA]

As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company. While the personal/professional division can be easily made for an employee far down on the org chart who does his job for 8 hours and then goes home, can the same be done for a top level executive, let alone the CEO?

[coldtea]

>As a CEO, you live, breathe and sleep for the company

You'd be surprised. That's just a myth we have, to justify crazy salaries.

In fact, there have been tons of CEOs with golden parachutes who could not give a flying duck for the company that hired them. Nokia's recent-ish management comes to mind.

[macu]

This sort of question, in fact the entire uproar, presumes that Brendan Eich is a hateful bigoted person with an agenda, or at least that he has some kind of dangerous impulse we should worry about. Do you think his stomach turns when he's around gay people? I don't believe it for a moment. If anything he probably just feels afraid that someone's going to attack him and accuse him of bigotry.

Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues, even if they involve many of the same people. We can't automatically hold someone accountable for both.

[GuiA]

See my other comment in this thread that touches on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7476046

I don't think that Brendan's stomach turns when he's around gay people or anything like that. However, I do believe that as the CEO of an entity (especially Mozilla), his beliefs will necessarily influence his actions; and that the particular beliefs highlighted by this action are at odds with Mozilla, thus making him ill-suited for a CEO role.

[macu]

I agree in general. So long as humans partake in decision-making, decisions will be made according to the minds involved.

I would worry about the possible impact of Brendan's personal beliefs if I thought that he truly has a heartfelt disdain for whole classes of people, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't.

The question of whether to support gay marriage doesn't always reduce to bigotry and homophobia. In Brendan's case, although no one seems to know, I think it comes down to a simple and specific commitment to a traditional idea of marriage, and it probably doesn't have the far-reaching implications that people assume.

Of course, his donation could have been motivated by complex ideologies. In that case, if we're going to hold people to such a high standard on the moral checklist, then I would worry more about the things that we don't know than the little glimpses we have into the inner lives of our leaders.

It's interesting to see where all this public discussion is going.

[aestra]

>traditional idea of marriage

Ok, I have a question. What exactly do these people think a traditional marriage is? Marriage is always and has always evolved with the times, culture, and societal norms and thinking. It wasn't until recently that we even married for love (love marriages) or selected our own spouse. Previously, marriages were more like a business transaction. A transfer of property from father to husband. It used to be that a woman's family paid a bride's dowry and we had the concept of bridewealth and coverture. In the UK, it wasn't until the Married Women's Property Act 1870 when a married woman was allowed to own property. Divorce was at a time uncommon, maybe even forbidden, now it is relatively common. Very few people are even going to blink an eye at a divorce. Even 20 years ago, people married much younger. Previously, a child born out of wedlock was called a bastard and avoided at all cost, and had different rights than their legitimate siblings, now close to 50% of births in the US are born to unwed mothers. The shotgun wedding is less common. Step families are common. Interracial marriage?? Illegal in parts of the US until Loving vs. Virgina. (1967!!) The court case came out of Mildred Loving and Richard Loving being sentenced to a year in jail for getting married. The original judge said in the verdict "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Even these traditions varied with culture, religion, time, and family. They continue to today. Arranged marriages are common and even the norm in some areas. Today.

There is no such thing as a traditional marriage. There never was.

[bane]

To be honest, most social conservatives would be shocked and mortified at a proposal to establish the forms of traditional biblical marriage that are actually in the bible.

But they will defend to the death the need to uphold the pagan Roman tradition.

[macu]

More to the point, Brendan's "traditional view of marriage" would be relative to whatever context he grew up in, and the traditions at the time. That's how I believe the term is meant in general.

[iSnow]

>Homophobia and opposition to gay marriage are in my opinion completely different issues

In the same way as Racism and support for Apartheid are completely orthogonal.

Come on...

[foolinaround]

I am not the OP, but you have a point, they are not completely orthogonal.

For instance, I do know many people who oppose gay marriage but are not homophobic.

[iSnow]

I doubt this. Opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic in my view like voting for Apartheid makes you a racist.

There is no "I have nothing against them but they should not have equal rights". If you opt not to support equal rights for any given group of people you believe their way of life is not as valid as yours.

[cookiecaper]

The difference being that "a way of life" refers to behavior, and race refers to an unchangeable physical characteristic that is constantly visible and constantly present. Even if we claim that homosexuality is an unchangeable inborn physical characteristic (which is highly dubious), there's not necessarily a mandate to allow (or, in the case of marriage, reward) the behaviors that those biological impulses promote. The case that we must allow a behavior simply because of a biological compulsion is a fallacious appeal to nature.

A person with sexual attraction to the same sex can restrain his behavior and not engage in sexual activity, despite his attraction. A person with a skin color cannot restrain his skin color, and cannot ever not "act on" his skin color, no matter what choices he makes. Homosexuality is not externally visible, but race is. It is not automatically shown at all times despite the behavior, wishes, or intention of the person, but race is. Someone who makes judgments based on willful sexual behaviors is fundamentally different from someone who makes judgments based on involuntarily hereditary attributes.

This is the difference that must be realized when we talk about racism as it compares to "homophobia". Homosexual behavior, and homosexual marriage, is a thing people choose to do, whatever biological or psychological forces may or may not be at work in the promotion of that behavior. This is completely different from visibly possessing certain levels of skin pigmentation.

"Homophobes" are not the same as racists. Whatever your opinion is, you must acknowledge that "homophobes" oppose a sexual behavior, whereas racists oppose the existence of a class of persons, no matter what choices they've made. Whether you think homosexuality is OK or not, there is a clear difference here.

Please acknowledge the failure of your analogy.

[lawl]

What do you expect from an answer from me on this? Obviously I'd say yes....

[GuiA]

I'm just trying to understand exactly where our reasoning diverges.