[bakhy]

"we would be bitching"? you too? :)

i'm pretty sure i have the right to protest what ever i want, regardless of how irrelevant my life problems may seem to you, and regardless of how easy it is for you to ascribe them all to matters of difference of opinion.

[pdpi]

Despite the subtle ad hominem, yes, me too. Absolutely. I'm pro-gay marriage (or, more to the point, given that gay marriage is now legal in Portugal, the fight has moved on, and it'd be more relevant to say that I'm for gay co-adoption).

I think you're missing the bigger point here. There is one topic I definitely care about more than I do about gay marriage: The capacity to even discuss it, and the right to talk about and support that cause if I see fit. And this is very much a case of what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. If you're OK with blocking Eich's ascension to CEO due to his position, it's hard to justify how you'd then be against other people being blocked like this for holding unpopular opinions.

In my experience, stifling debate usually hurts minorities and makes it easier to maintain the status quo, so if you want to further a minority cause, you need to be able to have open discussion, so all in all I'd rather allow people to voice unpopular opinions — in some circles, I'll be the one doing it!

[bakhy]

OK, you got my upvote ;) not just because you're for gay co-adoption, but because you really make a strong case.

i was really not that upset about all this, until i read the interview today. he really turned out sleazy, equating himself with the future of Mozilla, hiding behind Indonesian people, proclaiming protests against Mozilla keeping him on as being anti-freedom... he truly came off bad.

edit: but it still kinda lingers, the question - does his behavior fit with Mozilla ideals?

[kzrdude]

well, we can all talk about what's a better way to move forward. I believe that just like the issue of "interracial" marriages, the issue of same sex marriage both share one thing: the march of normalization is strong. People get used to it, also those that didn't want to. For this reason I think the best way to go forward as a society is reconciliation, tolerance and not mobbing.

"Either you are with us or against us" is a harmful doctrine.

[bakhy]

using such argumentation one can dismiss any protest one does not like. a protest is a perfectly legitimate form of political action, and is the only proven effective method of achieving change in this type of thing.

[kzrdude]

I don't agree, because my argument applies only when: the battle is already won. Same-sex marriage is normal. I'm talking about how we should behave after the battle is won.

[bakhy]

ah, ok. i understand what you mean now.

i would not say that it is already won, though. only a minority of US states recognizes gay marriage, and over 70 countries (if i remember correctly) worldwide criminalize homosexuality. and even when it is won, it will still take time for the people affected by the discrimination to simply relax and transcend it all. i would certainly not expect, not even today, that a black person be all reconciliatory with someone supporting an interracial marriage ban... it just doesn't work that way.

and, no offense, but try to consider what it would like to be to walk in my shoes. it is very easy to give advice to other people about how they should handle such problems, but it can easily come across as condescending. all of us in the LGBT community think about and discuss these things A LOT. and what we won so far, we fought for it our way, in a way that we found to work.