Chris Beard Named CEO of Mozilla

jimmyb said:
You completely ignored my question.
Click to expand...

And you mine. Are your opinions the *correct* ones, or not? You're the one throwing around the "bigot" label like it's going out of style. If those you disagree with are bigots(and that's not just more passive-aggressive bullshit), then you must have the non-bigoted/*correct* opinions. So...do you?
 
You've still avoided answering my question, and then additional thrown out a handful of your own. I guess you are somehow under the impression that I am going to answer them even though you haven't afforded me the same courtesy. Interesting.
 
jimmyb said:
You've still avoided answering my question, and then additional thrown out a handful of your own. I guess you are somehow under the impression that I am going to answer them even though you haven't afforded me the same courtesy. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Sucks when other people know how to play gotcha games too, doesn't it?
 
Stiletto said:
We're talking about two completely subjective opinions, that's right. I'm glad you see sense, and you're not trying to claim that your subjective opinion is objective fact and that anyone who opposes you is therefore malicious, evil, or some other ridiculous fanatical notion.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that restricting gay couples from marriage is beneficial? What moral justification is there for it? That's the whole issue here. If you can't answer those questions then I don't see how you can call the opposing view subjective.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
What evidence is there that restricting gay couples from marriage is beneficial? What moral justification is there for it?
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that gay couples getting married is a benefit to society? What moral justification is there for redefining the term?

Answer to all questions: immaterial. It's two subjective opinions. Yours is not objectively correct, no matter how much you may want it to be. Neither is, and you are evidently one of the people who is intellectually incapable of comprehending that.
 
Stiletto said:
What evidence is there that gay couples getting married is a benefit to society? What moral justification is there for redefining the term?

Answer to all questions: immaterial. It's two subjective opinions. Yours is not objectively correct, no matter how much you may want it to be. Neither is, and you are evidently one of the people who is intellectually incapable of comprehending that.
Click to expand...

Don't be a part-time populist.
 
Stiletto said:
What evidence is there that gay couples getting married is a benefit to society?
Click to expand...

There's plenty of evidence that marriage between heterosexuals tends to strengthen their financial positions and increases their overall happiness and well being. Little can be of more benefit to society than self-sufficient and happy individuals Indeed the benefits are the inalienable individual rights of life, liberty and this pursuit of happiness. Unless sexual orientation somehow effects married couples differently beyond biological reproduction.
 
heatlesssun said:
There's plenty of evidence that marriage between heterosexuals tends to strengthen their financial positions and increases their overall happiness and well being.
Click to expand...
Because "civil union" acknoledgement from the government somehow is so devestatingly different than using the term "marriage", which is at its root:
1) A religious ceremony
2) A contract designed around the nuclear family with the implication they will foster the next generation and produce children together.

So it would make a lot more sense for the government to recognize polygamy than it would gay marriage.
heatlesssun said:
Little can be of more benefit to society than self-sufficient and happy individuals.
Click to expand...
Since when do we need "feel good" legistlation enacted by government?

Lets call this what it really was. Gay couples could get "married" under civil unions, but that wasn't good enough, because the actual goal was to force the acceptance of homosexuality upon society as a whole with a stamp that says there is no difference between a stereotypical union of a man and a woman getting married and having kids, and two guys pounding butts monogomously.

But IMO, the state shouldn't be involved and should stay out of it and only recognize civil unions between any group that voluntarily enter into a contract. Whether that be a man and a woman, a man and two women, or two men. The religious aspect of "marriage" can be handled by independent churches, and protected under freedom of religion. So a church wouldn't have to marry people they didn't want to, and gay churches would pop up to fill that niche if needed.
 
Ducman69 said:
Gay couples could get "married" under civil unions, but that wasn't good enough, because the actual goal was to force the acceptance of homosexuality upon society as a whole with a stamp that says there is no difference between a stereotypical union of a man and a woman getting married and having kids, and two guys pounding butts monogomously.
Click to expand...

Gee, it's so nice seeing mature and rational arguments on both sides. *sigh*
 
beowulf7 said:
I read about this on CNET yesterday and someone made a funny comment that it's a little freaky that Chris Beard looks so "androgynous".
Click to expand...
If he's been a chunky butt for a long time, especially during puberty, that can happen. Obesity combined with low exercise causes low testosterone and higher estrogen levels, and that can affect bone development. Having the androgynous name of "Chris" doesn't help.
 
Ducman69 said:
Because "civil union" acknoledgement from the government somehow is so devestatingly different than using the term "marriage", which is at its root:
1) A religious ceremony
2) A contract designed around the nuclear family with the implication they will foster the next generation and produce children together.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of gay couples that I know that have children that they feed, cloth and love like any hetero couple I know. What's interesting about point 2 is that it has nothing to with this issue, the state can't stop gay couples from procreating with current technology married or not without new law. And yes point 2 has everything to do with the issue in that you make a point about civil unions being good enough but somehow seem to see an issue with gay couples with children, in that that can't raise children yet somehow many manage.

Ducman69 said:
Since when do we need "feel good" legistlation enacted by government?
Click to expand...

So a hetero marriage is a commitment but a gay marriage is about feeling good? This is the problem with civil unions. The implication is that marriage is real and a civil union isn't.
 
heatlesssun said:
There are plenty of gay couples that I know that have children that they feed, cloth and love like any hetero couple I know.
Click to expand...
Which a lot of people aren't comfortable with either. We don't allow a grown man to adopt a 14 year old vietnamese girl. Why do you think that is? But we allow grown men to adopt a 14 year old vietnamese boy. Interesting. In any case, the point is about the norm, not a requirement. Homosexual couples are not the nuclear family norm around which the institution was created. Why is polygamy illegal again, I forgot... I think it was based on moral objections of the majority, right? Interesting.
heatlesssun said:
This is the problem with civil unions. The implication is that marriage is real and a civil union isn't.
Click to expand...
No, the implication is that a civil union is nothing more than a contract between individuals enforced by the government, and marriage is a ceremony with strong religious overtones that is strongly rooted in traditions. The government shouldn't be involved with the latter, their responsibility is just to the former... but that was the problem, the gay couples didn't care about the contract, they want the government to say on behalf of society that "Its OK to be gay". It was all about forcing acceptance/blessing, not about practical legal concerns since those would have been covered under civil unions.
 
Ducman69 said:
If he's been a chunky butt for a long time, especially during puberty, that can happen. Obesity combined with low exercise causes low testosterone and higher estrogen levels, and that can affect bone development. Having the androgynous name of "Chris" doesn't help.
Click to expand...
And that probably explains why Beard probably can't even grow one.

Perhaps Mozilla wanted to counter the anti-gay marriage guy that they so rudely fired (damn PC liberals having their way with corporations!) by hiring someone who could come across as gay, based on looks.
 
Ducman69 said:
[snip]
Click to expand...
Just so you know, when you actively argue against the rights of others that have essentially no impact on your life and would make many others happy, people will assume you are either ignorant or being intentionally discriminatory or some combination of.
 
Ducman69 said:
Why is polygamy illegal again, I forgot... I think it was based on moral objections of the majority, right? Interesting.
Click to expand...

The granting of minority rights, or revocation of them, based on majority opinion is a slippery slope. It's all but certain that had the Civil Rights Act been put on the ballot in Southern states, it would have failed in that region. It might have very well failed in states outside of the South. But nationwide it probably would have passed. I think likely that a nationwide vote on same sex marriage today would have a similar outcome.


Ducman69 said:
No, the implication is that a civil union is nothing more than a contract between individuals enforced by the government, and marriage is a ceremony with strong religious overtones that is strongly rooted in traditions.
Click to expand...

Which then begs many questions. How can a majority vote something ok that is based on religious teachings when they would be of such different faiths and beliefs? Don't hetero atheists get married and call it married? Is that with or without strong religious overtones? Civil unions if you're gay but real marriage if you're straight is the state granting different protection under the law based on religious beliefs. Even granting different protections under the law for those that may indeed reject the religious adornment that state is applying to them.
 
jimmyb said:
No that's not my definition.
Click to expand...

Sure it is, as you seem to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is a bigot. You don't know Brendan Eich, and you don't know his reasons for contributing money to that group. He could have a number of philosophical or relgious reasons for being against gay marriage beyond I hate gays; and there is absolutely no evidence that his personal beliefs affected any employee at Mozilla.

If someone wants to support a cause that ultimately loses, are we to then use this as a litmus test for the rest of their life? Is it unreasonable to expect that someone can support a cause, see the other side win, and then accept that the other side has won that argument and act accordingly?
 
jimmyb said:
Just so you know, when you actively argue against the rights of others that have essentially no impact on your life and would make many others happy, people will assume you are either ignorant or being intentionally discriminatory or some combination of.
Click to expand...

In other words, everyone who argues pretty much every political issue is ignorant, discriminatory, or some combination of[sic].

Reflective surfaces. You need them.
 
heatlesssun said:
Civil unions if you're gay but real marriage if you're straight is the state granting different protection under the law based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd just as soon make them all civil unions, with the state defining the legal and financial obligations of such a contract. Anyone would be free to then add any religious element as they wished.
 
pigster said:
Agreed. I'd just as soon make them all civil unions, with the state defining the legal and financial obligations of such a contract. Anyone would be free to then add any religious element as they wished.
Click to expand...

That would be the ideal outcome for everyone, but they don't want people free to add religious elements to anything. They want religion constrained so that it adheres to their worldview. Neuter religion so that it cannot comment on sexuality, and suddenly they have obliterated the ability to discuss the morality of sexuality. If no one is allowed to judge, then one never has to feel bad. Then everyone feels good. Utopia achieved. Hurt feels abolished. Free Dr. Pepper for everyone.
 
pigster said:
So someone who doesn't share your values is a bigot by definition?
Click to expand...

pigster said:
Sure it is, as you seem to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is a bigot.
Click to expand...

pigster, these are different propositions; be careful not to conflate them as you have done. We have:
1) anyone who disagrees with my values is a bigot
2) anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot

Please note the difference. Number 2 is at best a subset of number 1.
 
heatlesssun said:
Which then begs many questions. How can a majority vote something ok that is based on religious teachings when they would be of such different faiths and beliefs? Don't hetero atheists get married and call it married?
Click to expand...
As an Atheist:
heatlesssun said:
that is strongly rooted in traditions.
Click to expand...
Same reason guys still drop to a knee and buy diamonds and give the woman his name. A value of respecting tradition for a sense of continuity.

That isn't something the government should be regulating IMO, which is why I said that I think everyone should just receive a stamp on a civil union contract. Everything else is a private matter that has nothing to do with the government, and you also can't force the public at large to give their blessing to something they disagree with for moral reasons. Homsexuals made it very clear though that wasn't the point at all, and they wanted that official blessing and aknowledgement on behalf of everyone.
 
Stiletto said:
That would be the ideal outcome for everyone, but they don't want people free to add religious elements to anything. They want religion constrained so that it adheres to their worldview. Neuter religion so that it cannot comment on sexuality, and suddenly they have obliterated the ability to discuss the morality of sexuality. If no one is allowed to judge, then one never has to feel bad. Then everyone feels good. Utopia achieved. Hurt feels abolished. Free Dr. Pepper for everyone.
Click to expand...

Looking at it from the standpoint of the Christian Bible it's easy to get caught up in the ancillary issues. None of those really matter if one doesn't believe in the one and only true God and that his son Jesus Christ died on the Cross at Calvary so that all can be washed of their sins and have eternal life through Him. What neuters Christianity more than anything are supposed believers of Christ who look at the specks in others' eyes but can't see the tree branches sticking out of their own. And those who preach Christian morality without the salvation of Jesus.

I don't claim to be the most moral or most powerful witness to His testimony, but I know that the laws of man aren't the source of my or anyone else's salvation. That's already been taken care of for those who believe.
 
jimmyb said:
pigster, these are different propositions; be careful not to conflate them as you have done. We have:
1) anyone who disagrees with my values is a bigot
2) anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot

Please note the difference. Number 2 is at best a subset of number 1.
Click to expand...

Which is fine, but doesn't really address the question
 
heatlesssun said:
Looking at it from the standpoint of the Christian Bible it's easy to get caught up in the ancillary issues. None of those really matter if one doesn't believe in the one and only true God and that his son Jesus Christ died on the Cross at Calvary so that all can be washed of their sins and have eternal life through Him. What neuters Christianity more than anything are supposed believers of Christ who look at the specks in others' eyes but can't see the tree branches sticking out of their own. And those who preach Christian morality without the salvation of Jesus.

I don't claim to be the most moral or most powerful witness to His testimony, but I know that the laws of man aren't the source of my or anyone else's salvation. That's already been taken care of for those who believe.
Click to expand...

One needn't believe in a giant invisible man in the sky to recognize the value of religious freedom and the danger of a society that starts muzzling religion solely for the purpose of preventing 1% of the population from experiencing unpleasant emotions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top