<story><title>Brendan Eich becomes Mozilla CEO</title><url>https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/mozilla-news/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>antimagic</author><text>Precisely.  There is no rational[1] grounds to oppose gay marriage, so we are left with the only remaining possibility - irrational aversion to homosexuality.&lt;p&gt;[1] where by &amp;quot;rational&amp;quot; I mean justifiable with facts and statistics to back it up.</text></item><item><author>WoodenChair</author><text>So now anyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic?  You do know that homophobia is defined as &amp;quot;an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.&amp;quot; (New Oxford American Dictionary)&lt;p&gt;Edit: Clearly I touched a nerve - before the hate mail comes in, I should clarify that I don&amp;#x27;t oppose gay marriage. I support the elimination of government sponsored marriage all together.</text></item><item><author>anon1385</author><text>I guess 2 years is long enough for most people to have forgotten the brief storm about his homophobic political activities. I wonder if this appointment would have been made 18 months ago when that was still fresh in people&amp;#x27;s minds. I can&amp;#x27;t help thinking that it doesn&amp;#x27;t really fit with the image Mozilla tries to present of themselves.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tommorris.org/posts/2550&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;tommorris.org&amp;#x2F;posts&amp;#x2F;2550&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>shasta</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s marriage.  It&amp;#x27;s a tradition, not something which you can derive rationally.  Let&amp;#x27;s hear your rational explanation of the role of marriage.  Be sure to explain why it follows logically that it should only apply to groups of two or more.&lt;p&gt;If you&amp;#x27;re honest with yourself, you recognize all of this language about rationality as rhetoric in a culture war in which you&amp;#x27;re attempting to shift cultural norms.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m for gay marriage.</text></comment>
<story><title>Brendan Eich becomes Mozilla CEO</title><url>https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/mozilla-news/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>antimagic</author><text>Precisely.  There is no rational[1] grounds to oppose gay marriage, so we are left with the only remaining possibility - irrational aversion to homosexuality.&lt;p&gt;[1] where by &amp;quot;rational&amp;quot; I mean justifiable with facts and statistics to back it up.</text></item><item><author>WoodenChair</author><text>So now anyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic?  You do know that homophobia is defined as &amp;quot;an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.&amp;quot; (New Oxford American Dictionary)&lt;p&gt;Edit: Clearly I touched a nerve - before the hate mail comes in, I should clarify that I don&amp;#x27;t oppose gay marriage. I support the elimination of government sponsored marriage all together.</text></item><item><author>anon1385</author><text>I guess 2 years is long enough for most people to have forgotten the brief storm about his homophobic political activities. I wonder if this appointment would have been made 18 months ago when that was still fresh in people&amp;#x27;s minds. I can&amp;#x27;t help thinking that it doesn&amp;#x27;t really fit with the image Mozilla tries to present of themselves.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://tommorris.org/posts/2550&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;tommorris.org&amp;#x2F;posts&amp;#x2F;2550&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sehr</author><text>&lt;a href=&quot;https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;brendaneich.com&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;community-and-diversity&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;...  the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity. Those asserting this are not providing a reasoned argument, rather they are labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society. To such assertions, I can only respond: “no”.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are other reasons for opposing things, religious reasons for example. Not saying they&amp;#x27;re well thought out or even remotely valid, but thinking in such a black and white manner isn&amp;#x27;t beneficial to decent conversation.</text></comment>