[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.