Chris Beard Named CEO of Mozilla

[heatlesssun]

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.

Like you can't make everyone a Christian or Muslim yet these religions preach that everyone must be these things or face really, really bad consequences.

I agree, the state has no business dealing with the religious aspects of marriage. Two people, age of consent, that should be the bulk of state's discrimination in the matter. If it can't be called marriage, ok, just seems silly cause that's what people are going to call it.

 

[heatlesssun]

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.

LOL! If the Bible is correct there's a great many more than 1% of the population that are going to experience a lot more suffering than unpleasant emotions.

 

[Stiletto]

LOL! If the Bible is correct there's a great many more than 1% of the population that are going to experience a lot more suffering than unpleasant emotions.

Then gay marriage is even more of an insignificant blot on the canvas of existence, isn't it?

 

[jimmyb]

Which is fine, but doesn't really address the question

Is this the question?

So someone who doesn't share your values is a bigot by definition?

No, that is not a sufficient condition to make someone a bigot.

Intentionally donating money to a discriminatory political cause is probably a sufficient condition.

 

[Stiletto]

Is this the question?


No, that is not a sufficient condition to make someone a bigot.

Intentionally donating money to a political cause I don't support is probably a sufficient condition.

FTFY. You must own a tablet, right? Clean the screen and you should be able to catch a glimpse.

 

[heatlesssun]

Then gay marriage is even more of an insignificant blot on the canvas of existence, isn't it?

Probably no more or less than human slavery. The Bible doesn't outright condemn slavery and being enslaved or a slave owner didn't preclude one from salvation. However there were many warnings about material greed, conventional sexual lust, those sorts of things. The Bible really isn't so much a guide about how to live this life, but how to obtain the next.

 

[Stiletto]

Probably no more or less than human slavery.

......................................................................................................................holy fucking Christ on a cracker.

Wow. Wow. Wow wow wow wow WOW.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I don't follow. Christianity didn't invent marriage, nor does it have a monopoly on it.

 

[heatlesssun]

......................................................................................................................on a cracker.

Using the Lord's name in vain and while pointing the finger at those who break other teachings. This is why I don't think these debates and conflicts are usually about the true freedom to practice one's faith but about cherry picking parts to give moral standing for the desires of humans.

 

[Stiletto]

Using the Lord's name in vain...

...means nothing to atheists like myself. Prejudice is a bad habit, ya know.

 

[heatlesssun]

...means nothing to atheists like myself. Prejudice is a bad habit, ya know.

Prejudice? You're the one preaching about the freedom of religion. If it's ok to speak out against same sex marriage based on religious beliefs then I have no idea how one misses the 3rd Commandment.

 

[Stiletto]

Prejudice? You're the one preaching about the freedom of religion. If it's ok to speak out against same sex marriage based on religious beliefs then I have no idea how one misses the 3rd Commandment.

You keep bringing up Christian concepts as if they have some bearing on my conduct, which indicates you're assuming that I obey edicts of Christianity. I do not. I'm an atheist. You shouldn't presume the religious beliefs of others based on a political position.

Yeah, I know...crazy that there can be atheists who don't take a shit on religious freedom, religion, or Christianity every change they get, right?

 

[heatlesssun]

You keep bringing up Christian concepts as if they have some bearing on my conduct, which indicates you're assuming that I obey edicts of Christianity. I do not. I'm an atheist. You shouldn't presume the religious beliefs of others based on a political position.

Yeah, I know...crazy that there can be atheists who don't take a shit on religious freedom, religion, or Christianity every change they get, right?

Huh? You're making the case, which I agree with, that if people want to participate in same sex marriage, how are other people's religious beliefs supposed to apply to them? Just like you're saying, you don't obey edicts of Christianity or most religions being an atheist. So why should it be any different for gay couples?

I don't personally agree with same sex marriage and it does violate the teachings of Christianity. But if violation of all Christian or Islamic or whatever religious teachings were the basis of our laws, then we'd all be in jail.

 

[Stiletto]

Huh? You're making the case, which I agree with, that if people want to participate in same sex marriage, how are other people's religious beliefs supposed to apply to them? Just like you're saying, you don't obey edicts of Christianity or most religions being an atheist. So why should it be any different for gay couples?

...because the people choose to vote that way? If you disagree, vote the other way. Simple. What you're proposing is that people should not be able to vote on an issue based on their religious beliefs. If we're going to police how people can vote based on where they get their opinions from, let's just call ourselves Oceania and be done with it.

Either that, or you're saying people shouldn't be able to suggest law based on their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that would be a huge violation of the First Amendment, so good luck with that.

I don't personally agree with same sex marriage and it does violate the teachings of Christianity. But if violation of all Christian or Islamic or whatever religious teachings were the basis of our laws, then we'd all be in jail.

Which is why our laws have a Christian basis, but are not dependent on any holy writings...which is a good thing. We chose the religion with the hippie instead of the warlord so that we could have credibility when telling the populace not to murderize each other.

 

[heatlesssun]

...because the people choose to vote that way? If you disagree, vote the other way. Simple. What you're proposing is that people should not be able to vote on an issue based on their religious beliefs. If we're going to police how people can vote based on where they get their opinions from, let's just call ourselves Oceania and be done with it.

I'm simply uncomfortable with the concept of the majority voting on the rights of the minority particularly at the state level because it's an abrogation of the equal protection clause. And as I've stated before, the Civil Rights Act would have failed in most states the South had it been on ballots there at the time. And to be honest, if the CRA were on ballots today, I'm not so sure how well it would hold up.

Either that, or you're saying people shouldn't be able to suggest law based on their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that would be a huge violation of the First Amendment, so good luck with that.

Obviously a lot of our most scared laws come from religious beliefs. But as an atheist and a supporter of the 1st Amendment I'm pretty sure you don't want the 3rd Commandment to become law.

Which is why our laws have a Christian basis, but are not dependent on any holy writings...which is a good thing. We chose the religion with the hippie instead of the warlord so that we could have credibility when telling the populace not to murderize each other.

The teachings of that hippie have pretty much nothing to do with codifying into human law his teachings. Someone can go to all of the anti-gay marriage rallies and what not they want, it means nothing without complete submission to an all mighty God and the accepting the salvation of his Son. That's a hard teaching, perhaps more so than that of the warlord.

 

[Ducman69]

I'm simply uncomfortable with the concept of the majority voting on the rights of the minority particularly at the state level because it's an abrogation of the equal protection clause.

Are you sure you are? What about a minority that believes that "16 is old enough" or "if one wife is good, two wives are better"? Do the moral objections of the majority really bother you?

Or do you not agree with the statement on the "Practical Polyamory" website:

Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other… We just disagree as to whether it’s a bad thing.

After all, what you're doing is telling people that the tradition and religious components and moral majority are null and void, and the purpose of marriage is now completely divorced from the traditional mom/dad relationships to foster the nuclear family and has devolved to just meaning "people who like each other", what argument could you possibly make for a distinction? They're consenting adults, the morality of the majority is irrelevant, and hell if anything there is a lot greater history of tradition surrounding polygamous marriages than same sex ones which were unheard of even in ancient Greece (where drenching yourself in olive oil and going balls deep in a teenage boy was as routine as brushing your teeth).

But you don't really hear much outcry from the gay community in support of their "oppressed" brothers and sisters, and if anything you hear outrage at the idea of being compared because... see previous post about why civil unions weren't good enough for the gay community.

 

[Stiletto]

I'm simply uncomfortable with the concept of the majority voting on the rights of the minority particularly at the state level because it's an abrogation of the equal protection clause. And as I've stated before, the Civil Rights Act would have failed in most states the South had it been on ballots there at the time. And to be honest, if the CRA were on ballots today, I'm not so sure how well it would hold up.

Not sure what to say other than I guess you're not comfortable with democracy...because that's what democracy is, the majority ruling by equal vote. This is why laws are less important than culture. Culture has far more of an impact in changing people's minds than a bill that restricts their freedom in some way. Lawrence vs. Texas came years after Ellen kissed a woman on television and Philadelphia made people realize that homosexuals were Tom Hanks. Want to change people's minds? Do so through culture. That's your protected right via the same amendment that protects the right of religious people to vote because they believe God hiccuped and that's where gay people came from. Don't restrict the concept of democracy just because you don't like the prospect of losing. Losing is part of the democratic process. If you can't handle the outcome, don't participate.

Obviously a lot of our most scared laws come from religious beliefs. But as an atheist and a supporter of the 1st Amendment I'm pretty sure you don't want the 3rd Commandment to become law.

Are we in some goddamned threat of that? I think South Park demonstrated pretty well that it's not God or Jesus we have to worry about uttering.

...um...I mean...DEATH TO ISRAEL! Please don't bomb me.

The teachings of that hippie have pretty much nothing to do with codifying into human law his teachings. Someone can go to all of the anti-gay marriage rallies and what not they want, it means nothing without complete submission to an all mighty God and the accepting the salvation of his Son. That's a hard teaching, perhaps more so than that of the warlord.

Yeah...that whole "submission" thing is always going to create friction between the individualist, self-reliant nature of America. Also kind of creeps me out, as well...no offense intended.

 

[heatlesssun]

Are you sure you are? What about a minority that believes that "16 is old enough" or "if one wife is good, two wives are better"? Do the moral objections of the majority really bother you?

It's easy to pick something fringe. Four years before I was born, every single member of the North Carolina delegation voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So it's a pretty good chance if the CRA had been on the ballot in NC in 1964 it would have failed. I understand that that was 50 years ago, nonetheless, it's just the kind of thing that makes me uncomfortable with the majority voting on minority rights.

After all, what you're doing is telling people that the tradition and religious components and moral majority are null and void, and the purpose of marriage is now completely divorced from the traditional mom/dad relationships to foster the nuclear family and has devolved to just meaning "people who like each other", what argument could you possibly make for a distinction?

The state is not the arbiter of faith. Even the Bible speaks of the differences been human law and God's law. There is a difference between being in the world and of it.

But you don't really hear much outcry from the gay community in support of their "oppressed" brothers and sisters, and if anything you hear outrage at the idea of being compared because... see previous post about why civil unions weren't good enough for the gay community.

Again, civil unions aren't equal protection under the law if there's those and then marriage for straight people. Why should someone have to settle for "good enough" when it's not "good enough for all"?

 

[heatlesssun]

Not sure what to say other than I guess you're not comfortable with democracy...because that's what democracy is, the majority ruling by equal vote.

No. I said I was uncomfortable with a majority voting on the rights of a minority. If you were in the position of being a minority with those that had a problem with you voting on your rights, you would be to.

Are we in some goddamned threat of that? I think South Park demonstrated pretty well that it's not God or Jesus we have to worry about uttering.

...um...I mean...DEATH TO ISRAEL! Please don't bomb me.

The point being that you obviously wouldn't care for that being turned into law. Anyone can cherry pick religious tenants they like. Cleary there are something that you agree with. Not that difficult a concept.

Yeah...that whole "submission" thing is always going to create friction between the individualist, self-reliant nature of America. Also kind of creeps me out, as well...no offense intended.

None taken. That hippie you referred to earlier though had a lot to say about those who go around pounding others over their heads with "religious" beliefs while being just as full of wrong and sin as anyone else. He had a lot more to say about this subject that gay marriage.

 

[Ducman69]

It's easy to pick something fringe. Four years before I was born, every single member of the North Carolina delegation voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So it's a pretty good chance if the CRA had been on the ballot in NC in 1964 it would have failed. I understand that that was 50 years ago, nonetheless, it's just the kind of thing that makes me uncomfortable with the majority voting on minority rights.

So you picked your slavery example, which is a hell of a lot more foreign than other minority sexuality preferences and moral beliefs.

Please explain to me as you would a child why switching the age of consent to 16 or legalizing polygamy should be outlawed while same sex unions are not only legal but inherently have to be called "marriage".

And I'm an Atheist, so lets not pretend I'm using the state as an "arbiter of faith" defense.

 

[heatlesssun]

So you picked your slavery example, which is a hell of a lot more foreign than other minority sexuality preferences and moral beliefs.

Please explain to me as you would a child why switching the age of consent to 16 or legalizing polygamy should be outlawed while same sex unions are not only legal but inherently have to be called "marriage".

And I'm an Atheist, so lets not pretend I'm using the state as an "arbiter of faith" defense.

Slavery ended in 1964? And the age of consent in a number of states is 16. I'm not a supporter of same sex marriage but I know a number of couples that have as far as I can tell healthy and happy children. Going around and preaching to them about the immorality of their life style does what for whom exactly? I don't know any polygamists personally so I have no frame of reference to even begin to form a real world opinion on that, but I am also not in favor of it either.

My point about being uncomfortable with the majority voting on the rights of a minority. Unless you've thought it through to where you're on the losing end of the minority side then I don't think you've thought it through.

 

[Ducman69]

My point about being uncomfortable with the majority voting on the rights of a minority. Unless you've thought it through to where you're on the losing end of the minority side then I don't think you've thought it through.

Of course I have, and:
1) The majority enacting rules by which all members must abide by is simply called a democracy. Obama was voted into office, so yes, being on the losing side always sucks, but its a lot better than the minority dictating rules against the wishes of the majority.
2) A minority imposing their belief system on the majority is no more democratic than a majority imposing their beliefs on a minority. After all, redefining marriage and the institution created around it intended for the basic family unit and with it violating traditions and traditional values and imposing on religious belief systems that alter society is not about rights, its about beliefs. Rights are covered cold, impersonally, and simply via "civil unions", so this isn't about rights and never was, its about beliefs.

So again, why does a minority like homosexuals have the right to impose a belief system into law while polygamists do not? Heck, in ancient Greece, having sex with underage prepubescent boys was considered necessary for the health of their society and the boys upbringing, as it would make him close with his mentor to learn the skills he needed as an adult. Were they right or wrong? If you answer they were right, you're promoting gay pedophilia BTW, just to make that part clear. The moral majority in the United States would argue its an unhealthy sexual deviancy that weakens society and needn't be promoted.

 

[Stiletto]

No. I said I was uncomfortable with a majority voting on the rights of a minority.

Yes, I know. I'm not sure why you think this is rational. Anyone who loses a vote is a minority. Were you uncomfortable with the majority voting on the rights of the minority that didn't want ACA? Come on, already. Your discomfort is over a rather silly notion.

...or do you mean "minority" minority, as in the politically correct term? If so, please give the 90s back its lingo.

The point being that you obviously wouldn't care for that being turned into law. Anyone can cherry pick religious tenants they like. Cleary there are something that you agree with. Not that difficult a concept.

No, I wouldn't care for that being turned into law, and once again, who is pushing for that? Even if someone did, it would fail miserably. If such a law DID pass, I'd be upset, and I'd probably emigrate. If the populace had made such a decision, I'd have completely lost faith in my countrymen.

Enforcing the third commandment a complete turning upside-down of the First Amendment. You'd be taking a word and applying official meaning to it in order to satisfy some special interest group. You know...sort of like taking the word "marriage" and creating law that forces people to pretend that the definition includes homosexual couples.

Yes, there are some I agree with. There are also some I don't. If the former are proposed as law, I'll vote for them. If the latter, I'll vote against them. And not once will I fret about the democratic principle just because I'm scared the vote might not go my way. That's childish and dangerous thinking.

None taken. That hippie you referred to earlier though had a lot to say about those who go around pounding others over their heads with "religious" beliefs while being just as full of wrong and sin as anyone else. He had a lot more to say about this subject that gay marriage.

Well, like it or not, any political issue involves lots of people pounding others over the head with their beliefs. If you don't like hearing one side's debate in an issue, don't listen, or don't participate in the debate at all. If you are unable to tolerate differing views without suffering some sort of emotional overload, then please...abstain from political debate. Some people simply cannot remain rational on the topic. This is why, in prior generations, you never talked politics or religion in mixed company.

 

[heatlesssun]

So again, why does a minority like homosexuals have the right to impose a belief system into law while polygamists do not?

Most gay people I know aren't thrilled about being compared to polygamists since homosexuality and polygamy are kind of different. The truth of the matter is that nationally same sex marriage is becoming acceptable to the majority. My wife is much more Christian traditional on the subject than I am but as she has met more and more gay couples, she's kind of coming to the same conclusion that I am. What exactly are you supposed to say to these people that's not a bunch of rhetoric when they are simply living their lives like anyone else?

 

[FearTheCow]

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.

When did "marriage" become a right again? I really love how liberals throw around the word "rights" whenever they want something and never actually stop to think that everything isnt a right, and even worse, refuse to examine what the root of a problem really is. In this case, it is government being in the "marriage business," what is wrong with the government just labeling 2 people who choose to be together a civil union? why try to force everyone to accept something they dont believe in instead?

 

[FearTheCow]

Most gay people I know aren't thrilled about being compared to polygamists since homosexuality and polygamy are kind of different. The truth of the matter is that nationally same sex marriage is becoming acceptable to the majority. My wife is much more Christian traditional on the subject than I am but as she has met more and more gay couples, she's kind of coming to the same conclusion that I am. What exactly are you supposed to say to these people that's not a bunch of rhetoric when they are simply living their lives like anyone else?

Both are personal choices made between consenting adults, so why is gay "marriage" so special to you? why are you trying to force your beliefs on others, which incidentally is exactly what you and every other liberal supposedly complains/fights against... hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well, like it or not, any political issue involves lots of people pounding others over the head with their beliefs.

Which is fine. My point is simply that when one starts taking that Bible and proclaiming the word in the name of God and telling other people how to live and they're not right with Christ, the only person they are condemning is themselves.

We love to talk about the little bits of the Bible that align with certain beliefs and give a moral base to the this or that or to chastise others. 99% of the Bible though is about making oneself right and those are the parts that even believers like to skip over.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Are you sure you are? What about a minority that believes that "16 is old enough" or "if one wife is good, two wives are better"? Do the moral objections of the majority really bother you?

Or do you not agree with the statement on the "Practical Polyamory" website:

After all, what you're doing is telling people that the tradition and religious components and moral majority are null and void, and the purpose of marriage is now completely divorced from the traditional mom/dad relationships to foster the nuclear family and has devolved to just meaning "people who like each other", what argument could you possibly make for a distinction? They're consenting adults, the morality of the majority is irrelevant, and hell if anything there is a lot greater history of tradition surrounding polygamous marriages than same sex ones which were unheard of even in ancient Greece (where drenching yourself in olive oil and going balls deep in a teenage boy was as routine as brushing your teeth).

But you don't really hear much outcry from the gay community in support of their "oppressed" brothers and sisters, and if anything you hear outrage at the idea of being compared because... see previous post about why civil unions weren't good enough for the gay community.

Unlike homosexuality, polygamy does have a significant impact on society and genetics. Polygamy leads to sexual dimorphism; Men are larger than women because humans were polygamous for a significant portion of our existence. Polygamy also creates social problems because it effectively guarantees that a portion of the men will never be able to find a mate. That might work for nomads, but not so much for settled agricultural societies.

 

[Ducman69]

Most gay people I know aren't thrilled about being compared to polygamists since homosexuality and polygamy are kind of different.

To them it is, I know. Some surely consider polygamous sexual relationships to be immoral. BTW, speaking to morality, kind of ironic that the ancient Greeks I mentioned that championed pederasty (older man taking a prepubescent boy under his wing for training/sex) thought it completely immoral for two men to marry because of the harm they believed that would do to the strength/prosperity of their society. Being an adult male "catcher" rather than pitcher was viewed as effeminate and loathsome, as you were to have developed into a man by then. Interesting.

But I see you've switched stance to "majority rule" on same sex marriage now, heh.

 

[heatlesssun]

Both are personal choices made between consenting adults, so why is gay "marriage" so special to you? why are you trying to force your beliefs on others, which incidentally is exactly what you and every other liberal supposedly complains/fights against... hypocrisy at its finest.

Do you even know any polygamists? I don't. Last time I checked, polygamy was illegal in all 50 states, maybe a I missed one or two. Same sex marriage, which isn't legal my state, 14 and DC I believe. Grandstanding about a subject that I've never been politically active about, gay marriage or polygamy is pretty silly. I've just stating my personal views. Which last time I checked, are just mine and have nothing to do with anyone else's life.

 

[Stiletto]

Which is fine. My point is simply that when one starts taking that Bible and proclaiming the word in the name of God and telling other people how to live and they're not right with Christ, the only person they are condemning is themselves.

We love to talk about the little bits of the Bible that align with certain beliefs and give a moral base to the this or that or to chastise others. 99% of the Bible though is about making oneself right and those are the parts that even believers like to skip over.

Okay...why is the Bible special in that regard, though? What if someone picks up Sartre and begins deciding that other people should live that way? What if someone picks up the Communist Manifesto and beings deciding that other people should live that way? Why is the Bible a particularly onerous source of ideological influence to you?

 

[Ducman69]

Unlike homosexuality, polygamy does have a significant impact on society and genetics.

Wait, homosexuality doesn't have a significant impact on society? That's not subjective at all... certainly there couldn't be cultural implications.

Polygamy leads to sexual dimorphism; Men are larger than women because humans were polygamous for a significant portion of our existence.

Long enough to make humans human. So polygamy is the natural state of man, and men become more manly and women more feminine rather than having a bunch of androgynous people. That's inherently bad because, why?

Polygamy also creates social problems because it effectively guarantees that a portion of the men will never be able to find a mate. That might work for nomads, but not so much for settled agricultural societies.

Assuming that polygamy means one man and multiple women, rather than a woman and multiple men or swinger couples in which multiple men and women marry and share beds. And a single loose woman or prostitute can have fifty male clients. So this all just becomes a question of morality.

Is this deviant sexual behavior moral, and in the best interest of society? If you disagree, be ready to be called a bigot and lose your job as CEO of Mozilla, assuming the polygamists have taken political power.

Oops, that spun around fast, huh?

 

[heatlesssun]

But I see you've switched stance to "majority rule" on same sex marriage now, heh.

You keep brining this up and I just don't think you're getting it. The notion of the majority controlling the rights of a minority is not some theoretical concept to me, it's a historical one. One where the history took a long time to get right from my perspective.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Wait, homosexuality doesn't have a significant impact on society? That's not subjective at all... certainly there couldn't be cultural implications.

There have always been gay people. I don't see what the negative impact of letting gay couples get married would possibly be. You haven't shown how its harmful and you've indicated that its similar to/a slippery slope to pedophilia or polygamy. You're proving my point, there is no rational basis for homophobia.

Long enough to make humans human. So polygamy is the natural state of man, and men become more manly and women more feminine rather than having a bunch of androgynous people. That's inherently bad because, why?

Runaway sexual dimorphism is why female spiders eat the males when they're done mating, to give you one example. In polygamous societies sex is a commodity owned by the dominant gender.

Polygamy increases violence. We see this in other primates and other animals, as well as in our own societies that still practice polygamy. Its one reason why poor Muslim men are willing to blow themselves up for 40 virgins.

Assuming that polygamy means one man and multiple women, rather than a woman and multiple men or swinger couples in which multiple men and women marry and share beds. And a single loose woman or prostitute can have fifty male clients. So this all just becomes a question of morality.

Is this deviant sexual behavior moral, and in the best interest of society? If you disagree, be ready to be called a bigot and lose your job as CEO of Mozilla, assuming the polygamists have taken political power.

Oops, that spun around fast, huh?

You can't seem to answer the original question. Explain to me what exactly gay marriage has to do with those things or pedophilia or anything else you consider deviant. I dont think you can, you've just been raised with the mistaken belief that they are somehow equivalent.

 

[fantabulous]

This turned into a circular rate of change of acceleration.

Regarding Brendan Eich stepping down, that was the right move for him. Let's also remember that he's the creator of Javascript, in addition to his personal views. As CEO, his personal views (real or perceived) mattered, as he had more than purely technical/financial decisions to make.

Perhaps he genuinely could have separated his personal views from his corporate decisions and would have made a good CEO for Mozilla. The contribution and lack of a full on "Proposition 8 was wrong and demeaning" apology made his pledge to inclusiveness questionable to a lot of people, myself included. I think the real/perceived* non-apology would have tarnished the brand** too much before he could prove himself.

*I like to think his apology and pledge to inclusiveness at Mozilla was genuine. Not everyone saw it that way and only Eich knows for sure.

**Of course, if he could clean up most of the longstanding suck in Firefox (in 10 days) people would overlook much worse personal views.

 

[krogen]

No common sense in this thread. For those of you who are swinging mud at both sides:

- Government does not need to define what marriage is. The world will keep turning without definition of marriage at the government level.

- There are incentives for governments that do define marriage. For example, money. So they do define it.

- There is no problem with defining marriage at the interpersonal level. If gays want to marry at their local church, why do you need to prohibit them from doing so? You may go ahead and preach to them your opinion and convert them to your ideology. Use of force? No.

- World would be a better place without marriage at the government level. For one, no unclear who-gets-what if marriage does fall apart. Marriage is often used as some kind of a safety net for people, yet it doesn't work well in that aspect as it's always up to courts to redistribute the wealth. There are other, better, legal means of asset protection, such as prenuptial agreements. Two, as mentioned previously, you are free to define what marriage is for you. Everyone is happier, as everyone can pursue what is right to them. Again, in a free society you are free to make your ideas known.

 

[Stiletto]

No common sense in this thread.

-------------------------------------------

Vote Ron Paul.

Had to do it.

 

[Ducman69]

You keep brining this up and I just don't think you're getting it. The notion of the majority controlling the rights of a minority is not some theoretical concept to me, it's a historical one. One where the history took a long time to get right from my perspective.

No, I already addressed the concept of the majority creating rules that everyone has to live by.

You haven't shown how its harmful and you've indicated that its similar to/a slippery slope to pedophilia or polygamy. You're proving my point, there is no rational basis for homophobia.

Because I don't care, and think that civil unions for anyone who wants one are fine. And its not a slippery slope, its flat out hypocrisy. You're perfectly willing to accept the analogy that a sexually deviant behavior that a large segment of the population considers immoral is akin to forced labor slavery (makes no sense), but not compare one morally questionable sexual deviant behavior to another sexually deviant behavior. That's literally as apples to apples as you can make a comparison. And as was said, there isn't a right or wrong answer when it comes to morals, but that is why its so hypocritical for homosexuals to condemn sexual behavior between consenting adults they find morally reprehensible, but then try to ruin someone's life if they dare have traditional values that differ from their own as well.

Runaway sexual dimorphism is why female spiders eat the males when they're done mating, to give you one example. In polygamous societies sex is a commodity owned by the dominant gender.

Polygamy increases violence. We see this in other primates and other animals, as well as in our own societies that still practice polygamy.

1) No one would force polygamy on the entire population for such an extent of time that it could alter the biological makeup of the human race to where women are eating men. Not that such a fear isn't completely rational.
2) Bonobo apes are polygamous and are the most peaceful primate species we know of. They're also lots of homos... really they'll put their D in just about everything, which homosexuals have actually used to explain that homosexuality is normal. But before getting too excited, bonobo society hasn't exactly been triumphantly successful and their highest accomplishment involves the realization that bananas can be eaten not only sitting upright but laying down.

Spartans were monogamous, and are one of the most warlike civilizations we know of to date, and so far only one out of every six societies we know of now and historically have had any laws even vaguely enforcing or promoting monogamy from King Solomon to the Han Chinese and so forth, and even the so called monogamous Gecko-Roman cultures that while technically married to only one woman, could have free sex with as many slaves as they could afford as "house mistresses" (or boys if you're greek).

But the entire point is that its completely fair and natural for their to be debate about what sexual deviancy we do and don't want to promote in our society, and people's opinions will differ. So to crucify some CEO for wishing to maintain the definition of marriage (the union of a man and woman) and promote traditional values as his own moral compass is outright BS... and that's what the gay community and their hardcore left-wing proponents have done and continue to do.

 

[jimmyb]

snip

Gay marriage and polygamy are different. If you want to make the case that polygamy should be either legal or illegal that's fine, but you won't be talking about gay marriage.

 

[Ducman69]

Gay marriage and polygamy are different. If you want to make the case that polygamy should be either legal or illegal that's fine, but you won't be talking about gay marriage.

Orange and Green are different, but they are both colors. Gay marriage and polygamy are both non-traditional (in the US at least) sexually deviant behaviors that a large portion of the population considers morally questionable. Yes, in that way they are exactly the same. Can you say that one is moral and one is immoral? Yup, you sure can, but which is which is a matter of personal opinion and everyone has their own moral compass and values they honor, and they should be allowed to express those without people attacking them and trying to ruin their lives. That's the hypocrisy of the gay community and their left-wing militant supporters.