this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
735 points (100.0% liked)

Firefox

449 readers
5 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A2PKXG@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I disagree with the article. It appears to make two points, both don't convice me.

The first one is about a political donation made by the founder 15 years ago to the tune of 1000 USD. It was against gay marriage. While I somewhat support gay marriage, I find it totally acceptable to be opposed to it. It depends on what marriage means, and people don't agree on that. For some people it just means a strong bond, stronger than a normal relationship. With this definition, gay marriage isn't an issue.

But to other people marriage is an envelope that's supposed to foster reproduction and family building. With this definition gay marriage isn't exactly straightforward. Neither should it be for people with fertility problems and women over 50 in general. Are convervatives also against that? I guess they should. Whatever. I started off thinking I could defend the stance, now i don't think i did. Either way, ditch a browser over this nonsense?

And if Tim Berners Lee spews some BS, will you stop using the Internet? Or if your country elects a stupid president, will you boycott the country and leave temporatily?

The other issue is what Brave does with ads. While I agree it is imperfect, I think in general the approach is among the better ones around.

[–] silvershrimp0@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At the time, same sex couples already had the right to marry in California. He donated money to take that right away from them. Would your stance be the same if he donated money to remove civil rights protections for racial minorities?

[–] A2PKXG@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That actually makes a difference to me.

I think civil rights for minorities are super important.

I find marriage much less important. It's essentially just a symbol. (Or is it about the tax benefits and legal protections in case of death? That's substantial)

[–] silvershrimp0@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, just a symbol until your deceased partner's family tries to take your house. Just a symbol until you realize you can't sponsor your foreign partner for immigration because the government doesn't recognize your relationship.

Those legal protections around property are the whole point of the law recognizing marriage.

load more comments (6 replies)