> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
You got a person fired for his political views. Let's not pretend Brendan Eich violated human rights, he did not.
You did.
I'm making my sites just outright refuse mozilla's browsers.
Can you please understand that coming from a country where political cleansings of companies and government departments are normal that you will see a VERY strong reaction against this.
He argued for, and donated money towards a campaign for, the violation of my human rights. I'm sorry that I got angry about that and exercised my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association?
> I'm making my sites just outright refuse mozilla's browsers.
You're well within your right to do that. I'll point out that now you're in the same position as I was; you're boycotting Mozilla because it doesn't match your political views.
I get it. People don't like the "of a different sex" in there and they have the right to appeal to have that removed. I'm more in favor with getting rid of marriage privileges all together... why burden single people?
UPDATE: To the downvoter, am I wrong or do you just disagree? Please clarify by commenting.
Which discriminates by sex the same way that "every person is allowed to marry one person of the same race" discriminates by race.
> I'm more in favor with getting rid of marriage privileges all together... why burden single people?
How does the option to marry burden people who choose not to exercise that option?
(Update: your point about race is great and forcing me to rethink my stance by the way.)
What is the purpose of marriage benefits? How does having them benefit society enough that government wishes to recognize it? I'd guess its to encourage offspring in order to continue future prosperity. I'm proposing we step back and ask, what's the purpose of recognizing marriages? What are we trying to incentivize and is it working?
Rather than blindly extending things perhaps we should consider repealing or scaling them back? Look at the war on drugs, we thought banning marijuana would be beneficial, we're now questioning that.
The second point of burden pertains mostly to giving tax breaks to married couples.
Largely, to: (1) simplify life for people who want to do a fairly common thing, establishing a fairly comprehensive mutual support partnership, and (2) encourage people to do that thing, and thereby reduce the chance of becoming a public burden.
> The second point of burden pertains mostly to giving tax breaks to married couples.
The "break" is mostly (roughly) treating married couples as if their combine income were earned equally split between the two, on the premise that the lower earning member of the couple is making sacrifices to enable the higher-earning member to earn their wage (for couples of roughly equal income, there is no tax break [1].)
[1] And, potentially, its worse than just "no break": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
I don't want to be mean, but this logic is just faulty. You can define any discrimination as equality if you shuffle the terms around.
Think instead about marriage equality meaning equality for couples, rather than individuals. The proposal is that a same-sex couple should have the same rights as an opposite-sex couple. Discrimination is based on the collective gender of the couple.