Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-same-sex-marriage controversy

[sth]

it was a break down of your commenting history, not in this thread.

Oh, I see! So I made racist comments elsewhere?

this thread went 3 pages deep without a mention of any political affiliation, until you came along.

What are you talking about? Political affiliations? Did you mean the conservative wing of GLAAD? This is a thread about politics, demik.

like always. you use these threads to get on your soap box and QQ about the same **** over and over again.

We are talking about how progressives react to dissenting points of views -- that's political, so I don't think we're off in the weeds here. I think you see people having an adult conversation and cannot help but drop a deuce into it. The people in this thread don't agree on everything, but we're hashing it out and enjoying ourselves, and you arrive with a FoxNews QQ deuce-and-dash comment, as a series of phrases and sentence fragments.

We were talking about how Progressives don't actually discuss anything, they just demonize those who disagree and move on.

Thank you so much for providing the thread with a living example of how they do it.

It was unintentional, but thanks just the same.

no, actually, we were discussing a bigot stepping down from his public-facing position when people found out that he did things that bigots do. 

[IPT]

it was a break down of your commenting history, not in this thread.

Oh, I see! So I made racist comments elsewhere?

this thread went 3 pages deep without a mention of any political affiliation, until you came along.

What are you talking about? Political affiliations? Did you mean the conservative wing of GLAAD? This is a thread about politics, demik.

like always. you use these threads to get on your soap box and QQ about the same **** over and over again.

We are talking about how progressives react to dissenting points of views -- that's political, so I don't think we're off in the weeds here. I think you see people having an adult conversation and cannot help but drop a deuce into it. The people in this thread don't agree on everything, but we're hashing it out and enjoying ourselves, and you arrive with a FoxNews QQ deuce-and-dash comment, as a series of phrases and sentence fragments.

We were talking about how Progressives don't actually discuss anything, they just demonize those who disagree and move on.

Thank you so much for providing the thread with a living example of how they do it.

It was unintentional, but thanks just the same.

no, actually, we were discussing a bigot stepping down from his public-facing position when people found out that he did things that bigots do. 

or someone who lost their job because of the PC mob

[sth]

PC mob is better than the other mobs because we don't wear fedoras

[iri]

the topic has nothing to do with politics or violation of rights. it's all about collective *******ry and witch hunting.

we have laws against discrimination.

do you have any laws against murder?

[paicrai]

I feel this thread is finished... Anyone feel me on this? Anyone?

[iri]

may here be the link to the post by Andrew Sullivan, a gay activist.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

[Novus]

I think it's okay to pay a price for standing up for what you believe in, but The Left in America (their leadership) have adopted a scorched earth policy on people who differ with them. It's really a shame because it wasn't always this way. There was a time when Democrats were as they were today, acting as the American conscience -- the Motherly sort of group. "These people need our help." Republicans are the Fathers -- the guys who balance the family budget. "We should help them, yes -- but what about paying our own rent?" Both approaches are laudable. But from where I sit, Democrats don't ever portray Republican values or ideas as anything other than "mean" or "evil" -- and that's really sad. Democrats have made what was an open discussion into a death struggle.

And they're going to win at this rate. Conservatives are boxing English-style (fists up, wrists forward, handlebar mustache) and Progressives are fighting MMA-style with ninja swords. It's not enough for them to win the discussion, they have to end the discussion forever. They even do it to their own. Juan Williams, anyone?

Uhhhhhhh.
What you described is just called politics.

As a person voice utterly despises most liberals (except the elite) I really hate to say this but conservatives are the ones who've been in engaging in scorched earth policies.

Remember Cathy or whatever her name was from Spokane? Yea well that healthcare horror story was just dead wrong.
Democrats want to go nuclear? 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents.
Here's the powder keg, common sense gun control laws? Nope. Democrats are too ****. Conservatives aren't willing to reach out after numourous national tragedies.
National registry nope. Common sense laws nope. We don't want to grow closer to building a national registry. Fearrrr.
ATF didn't even have a real director until just recently because of the NRA.

Democrats are a bunch of ****s but they're not the ones that go around actually saying we're going to make sure this president is one term.
They also don't joke about killing your grandmother's in death camps and no that wasn't just crazy conservative talk show hosts.
It realy pains me to say that  conservatives are the ones taking the piss.

Democrats are going to win because their candidates don't look or sound like a bunch of people on crack at a beauty parent. I mean common that last primary was such a joke.

Oh right back on topic.
Too bad for this guy.
Successful people always have a large target painted on their backs.
In this case his laundry got aired and he managed to irk off a bunch of liberals. He resigned. Boohoo.
Power to the people.

Liberals are just mad they don't have enough money and centralized political captial to unilaterally seize victory.
I mean for Pete's sake CA voted to ban gay marriage and now they're throwing a hissy fit over this guy.
He's a CEO he knows the game and get how it works.

Don't worry sometimes you have to go down to go up. It will all work out for him!

[Krogenar]

I think it's okay to pay a price for standing up for what you believe in, but The Left in America (their leadership) have adopted a scorched earth policy on people who differ with them. It's really a shame because it wasn't always this way. There was a time when Democrats were as they were today, acting as the American conscience -- the Motherly sort of group. "These people need our help." Republicans are the Fathers -- the guys who balance the family budget. "We should help them, yes -- but what about paying our own rent?" Both approaches are laudable. But from where I sit, Democrats don't ever portray Republican values or ideas as anything other than "mean" or "evil" -- and that's really sad. Democrats have made what was an open discussion into a death struggle.

And they're going to win at this rate. Conservatives are boxing English-style (fists up, wrists forward, handlebar mustache) and Progressives are fighting MMA-style with ninja swords. It's not enough for them to win the discussion, they have to end the discussion forever. They even do it to their own. Juan Williams, anyone?

Uhhhhhhh.
What you described is just called politics.

As a person voice utterly despises most liberals (except the elite) I really hate to say this but conservatives are the ones who've been in engaging in scorched earth policies.

Remember Cathy or whatever her name was from Spokane? Yea well that healthcare horror story was just dead wrong.
Democrats want to go nuclear? 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents.
Here's the powder keg, common sense gun control laws? Nope. Democrats are too ****. Conservatives aren't willing to reach out after numourous national tragedies.
National registry nope. Common sense laws nope. We don't want to grow closer to building a national registry. Fearrrr.
ATF didn't even have a real director until just recently because of the NRA.

Democrats are a bunch of ****s but they're not the ones that go around actually saying we're going to make sure this president is one term.
They also don't joke about killing your grandmother's in death camps and no that wasn't just crazy conservative talk show hosts.
It realy pains me to say that  conservatives are the ones taking the piss.

Democrats are going to win because their candidates don't look or sound like a bunch of people on crack at a beauty parent. I mean common that last primary was such a joke.

Oh right back on topic.
Too bad for this guy.
Successful people always have a large target painted on their backs.
In this case his laundry got aired and he managed to irk off a bunch of liberals. He resigned. Boohoo.
Power to the people.

Liberals are just mad they don't have enough money and centralized political captial to unilaterally seize victory.
I mean for Pete's sake CA voted to ban gay marriage and now they're throwing a hissy fit over this guy.
He's a CEO he knows the game and get how it works.

Don't worry sometimes you have to go down to go up. It will all work out for him!

Um, no -- that's not something I said. Maybe it was accidental, but that's not my quote.

EDIT: From tp:

no, actually, we were discussing a bigot stepping down from his public-facing position when people found out that he did things that bigots do.

Ah, ok, so the bigoty bigot did the bigotry with bias and bigotry -- off with his bigoted head!

Example number two folks. No facts, no information, no discussion; demonize, destroy and move on -- first demik provides an example of the practice, and now tp. Thank you for making this discussion come alive with living examples.

Let's see if you can do better: is it possible to disagree with gay marriage and yet not be a homophobe? Second, if it's perfectly legitimate, legally, for a lobby of people to boycott someone on these grounds, should conservatives organize boycotts of their own, or would that escalation make matters worse?

[riotonthebay]

Let's see if you can do better: is it possible to disagree with gay marriage and yet not be a homophobe?

I don't believe this is possible. It's the promotion of institutional homophobia. Disagreeing with gay marriage is agreeing to curtail the rights of a group on arbitrary bounds; it is homophobic in the same way that "hispanics should not be allowed to marry" is racist. Most people, however, will come to see this, hopefully in the near future. They will be embarrassed that they stood against gay marriage for the same reason that much of my grandparent's generation is embarrassed for standing against the Civil Rights Act: not because they're standing for what's right, but because they're standing against change of any sort.

[sth]

no, actually, we were discussing a bigot stepping down from his public-facing position when people found out that he did things that bigots do.

Ah, ok, so the bigoty bigot did the bigotry with bias and bigotry -- off with his bigoted head!

i'm not sure if you're mistaking my name on purpose or not.

Ah, ok, so the bigoty bigot did the bigotry with bias and bigotry -- off with his bigoted head!

Example number two folks. No facts, no information, no discussion; demonize, destroy and move on -- first demik provides an example of the practice, and now tp. Thank you for making this discussion come alive with living examples.

the facts and discussion are right here, in this very thread! people have even linked articles with the details! check it out. you don't even have to look anything else up.

Let's see if you can do better: is it possible to disagree with gay marriage and yet not be a homophobe?

i guess, right now, i can't do better. you got me. right now, i honestly don't believe that opposition to gay marriage, in a mainstream political context (i'm of course not including groups like bash back because they don't operate within a mainstream political network) cannot be motivated by homophobic beliefs.

however, i think there is a disconnect here between holding a belief (gay people should not be married for X reason) and not wanting to be held accountable for that belief (why does this belief only target gay people?) and i think we need to clarify something. i don't want to speak in hypotheticals.

can you give me some specific examples of what could inform a negative opinion of gay marriage that are not specifically related to the fact that the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex does not fit the "traditional" concept of marriage? can you tell me if any of those examples pose a real threat to the legalization of gay marriage, or if people that hold those beliefs consider their opposition to gay marriage a primary tenet of their political ideology?

basically what i'm asking is if you know of any argument for why gay marriage should not be legal that actually has any political clout that ISN'T motivated by homophobia?   

Second, if it's perfectly legitimate, legally, for a lobby of people to boycott someone on these grounds, should conservatives organize boycotts of their own, or would that escalation make matters worse?

conservatives do this already. see proposition 8 -- specifically mentioned as a recipient of this guy's donations -- and every other piece of legislation specifically prohibiting gay people from marrying each other. i think it's pretty bad.

[SpAmRaY]

may here be the link to the post by Andrew Sullivan, a gay activist.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

and a few more

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-a-heretic-ctd/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/dissents-of-the-day-63/

[sth]

i thought this was a really good take on that idea: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-culture-of-shut-up/360239/

[Lanx]

basically what i'm asking is if you know of any argument for why gay marriage should not be legal that actually has any political clout that ISN'T motivated by homophobia?   

yea i like this interpretation more.

aside from the stupid arguments ppl bring up

if gay marriage is legal then animal/man marriage should be legal - no, because marrying an animal is stupid and its what cavemen do

then they say

well how about a 60 year old marrying a 16 year old, the legal age should be lowered - no, because you have to protect stupid, and 16yr old kids are stupid

then they say

well how about polygamy - again, you have to protect stupid, in this case you have to protect the dumb man, because only a retard would want 2 wives.

haven't you ppl heard that in arguments with gay marriage?

[SpAmRaY]

basically what i'm asking is if you know of any argument for why gay marriage should not be legal that actually has any political clout that ISN'T motivated by homophobia?   

yea i like this interpretation more.

aside from the stupid arguments ppl bring up

if gay marriage is legal then animal/man marriage should be legal - no, because marrying an animal is stupid and its what cavemen do

then they say

well how about a 60 year old marrying a 16 year old, the legal age should be lowered - no, because you have to protect stupid, and 16yr old kids are stupid

then they say

well how about polygamy - again, you have to protect stupid, in this case you have to protect the dumb man, because only a retard would want 2 wives.

haven't you ppl heard that in arguments with gay marriage?

wow...i just googled 'sexy cow'....slightly NSFW in case anyone was wondering

AND as stupid as some of those things sound there are people out there who do desire to fight for the right to do those things.

[iri]

a prominent member in russia's gun owners society is a zoophile. he loves to **** dogs. how would you call people who dislike him because of that? zoophilophobes?

[kurplop]

SpAmRaY-   Very appropriate Orwellian quote (from Sullivans piece) to clarify what is happening today.

It seems to be the nature of humans, as well as pigs, to exercise abusive control when we are in the position to do so and to do otherwise takes vigilant restraint and virtue.

I was thinking about a line from Alan Paton's book Cry, the Beloved Country, where a character commenting on the foreseen acceptance of the black man in the white controlled South Africa lamented-   "I have one great fear in my heart, that one day when they have turned to loving they will find we are turned to hating".

[Krogenar]

i'm not sure if you're mistaking my name on purpose or not.

It wasn't on purpose, sorry about that.

Let's see if you can do better: is it possible to disagree with gay marriage and yet not be a homophobe?

i guess, right now, i can't do better. you got me. right now, i honestly don't believe that opposition to gay marriage, in a mainstream political context (i'm of course not including groups like bash back because they don't operate within a mainstream political network) cannot be motivated by homophobic beliefs.

Ok, so to sum up, anyone who disagrees with your political goal (gay marriage) is a homophobe. This seems extreme and unfair to me. How can you be so sure without hearing them out? And that's the real focus of the thread -- is it ethical to eliminate all dissent via boycotting? Why couldn't the CEO have explained his position and maybe kept his job? Hell, he could have said, "I was wrong." There wasn't even that opportunity. This is a recipe for a lockstep political philosophy -- which isn't good for democracy.

can you give me some specific examples of what could inform a negative opinion of gay marriage that are not specifically related to the fact that the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex does not fit the "traditional" concept of marriage? can you tell me if any of those examples pose a real threat to the legalization of gay marriage, or if people that hold those beliefs consider their opposition to gay marriage a primary tenet of their political ideology?

I believe a lot of backlash to gay marriage is related to the meaning of the word 'marriage' -- gay couples have had the right to civil unions for a while now, which provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage. So this wasn't really about securing rights -- they had them -- it was about securing social normalization. And some people just aren't ready for that yet -- but that's okay, because gay rights leaders want to clash with these people. And, predictably, they're clashing.

Gay marriage doesn't worry me at all. Gay divorce will follow swiftly after. About the only rational argument I've heard for delaying or postponing "gay marriage" is that it would make it easier for male gay couples to adopt children. Traditionally, I hate arguments containing the phrase, "but what about the children?!" but this is different. This person made the case that the gay mafia is so powerful that should an adopted child end up being adopted by gay parents who are abusing the child or not seeing to their needs, that it will be politically impossible or politically very risky to step in and take the child out of a bad environment. A child services bureaucrat will have to decide to help that child or keep their job. Because you just know that the gay leadership is going to destroy that person, there will be New York Times editorials galore, etc. ad nauseum.

Also, when adoptions are under being reviewed usually the principle concern is the longterm viability of the couple. Are you and your spouse going to get divorced two years from now, and leave this child in even more emotional turmoil? What if we discover that male gay marriages are statistically more unstable than hetero couples (I don't know if that's true or not, perhaps they're more stable) -- you can again be absolutely sure that a gay activist somewhere will look at the adoption rate statistics of gay couples vs. hetero couples and declare that the entire process is homophobic.

Which, in practical terms, would mean that the bar will be lowered for gay couples, compared to hetero couples, when it comes to adoptions. Which means some kids will end up getting hurt for the sake of politics.

That's the only argument that ever made even an ounce of sense to me. My attitude on rights is this: yours end where mine begin. So, when a gay couple gets married, how does it impinge on my freedom? It doesn't, so where's the fire? My problem with the gay activist leadership in America is not that they want their rights, it's how they go about it -- it's more like a reign of terror than a movement. So someone who is worried about gay marriage vis-a-vis gay adoption doesn't necessarily have anything against gays, they just don't want to see something as delicate as child adoption become politicized. And all the gay leadership seems to want to do is politicize everything; everything relates back to homophobia for them.

I don't agree with this argument, but I believe this person did have the rights of children in mind, and I respected their sincerity, if not their argument. Gay couples should have their rights, despite their leadership not having an ounce of finesse or respect for others.

basically what i'm asking is if you know of any argument for why gay marriage should not be legal that actually has any political clout that ISN'T motivated by homophobia?

See above.

[sth]

Ok, so to sum up, anyone who disagrees with your political goal (gay marriage) is a homophobe. This seems extreme and unfair to me. How can you be so sure without hearing them out?
And that's the real focus of the thread -- is it ethical to eliminate all dissent via boycotting? Why couldn't the CEO have explained his position and maybe kept his job? Hell, he could have said, "I was wrong." There wasn't even that opportunity. This is a recipe for a lockstep political philosophy -- which isn't good for democracy.

Okay, so are you saying that it is logically questionable to be opposed to intolerance because that is a form of intolerance? The comparison between boycotting people who contribute to political campaigns aimed at preventing people from doing things that don't affect them and actually trying to prevent people from doing those things are totally different.

I believe a lot of backlash to gay marriage is related to the meaning of the word 'marriage' -- gay couples have had the right to civil unions for a while now, which provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage. So this wasn't really about securing rights -- they had them -- it was about securing social normalization. And some people just aren't ready for that yet -- but that's okay, because gay rights leaders want to clash with these people. And, predictably, they're clashing.

Okay the fact that proposition 8 even happened should tell you that there are still people that want to take this away from others based on a prejudice against homosexuals . i would say homosexual behavior but i think it's probably a safe bet to say that anybody who wants to commit to one person of the same sex for the rest of their lives could reasonably be labeled a homosexual.
Look at why Prop 8 was eventually overturned:
"In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis." - 3rd paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
In the eyes of the law, Prop 8 would have taken away the rights of homosexuals. It's not a bait and switch.

Gay marriage doesn't worry me at all. Gay divorce will follow swiftly after. About the only rational argument I've heard for delaying or postponing "gay marriage" is that it would make it easier for male gay couples to adopt children. Traditionally, I hate arguments containing the phrase, "but what about the children?!" but this is different. This person made the case that the gay mafia is so powerful that should an adopted child end up being adopted by gay parents who are abusing the child or not seeing to their needs, that it will be politically impossible or politically very risky to step in and take the child out of a bad environment. A child services bureaucrat will have to decide to help that child or keep their job. Because you just know that the gay leadership is going to destroy that person, there will be New York Times editorials galore, etc. ad nauseum.

Also, when adoptions are under being reviewed usually the principle concern is the longterm viability of the couple. Are you and your spouse going to get divorced two years from now, and leave this child in even more emotional turmoil? What if we discover that male gay marriages are statistically more unstable than hetero couples (I don't know if that's true or not, perhaps they're more stable) -- you can again be absolutely sure that a gay activist somewhere will look at the statistics of gay couples vs. hetero couples and declare that the entire process is homophobic.

Sorry, did I miss something? What person is talking about a Gay Mafia? i don't care about the Gay Mafia. what about the millions of real people that are affected by real problems caused by real people that try to pass real laws because they believe in hypothetical arguments based on homophobic beliefs?

do you seriously think that the problem with allowing gay marriage, and the right to adopt, is that a hypothetical gay couple could adopt and abuse a child? do you really think that child abuse is the issue? really? that sounds like an entirely separate issue and claiming that allowing more people to adopt opens the door to abuse and specifically use that as ammunition to deny other people rights based on absolutely nothing rational, that's pretty low.

That's the only argument that ever made even an ounce of sense to me. My attitude on rights is this: yours end where mine begin. So, when a gay couple gets married, how does it impinge on my freedom? It doesn't, so where's the fire? My problem with the gay activist leadership in America is not that they want their rights, it's how they go about it -- it's more like a reign of terror than a movement. So someone who is worried about gay marriage vis-a-vis gay adoption doesn't necessarily have anything against gays, they just don't want to see something as delicate as child adoption become politicized. And all the gay leadership seems to want to do is politicize everything; everything relates back to homophobia for them.
I don't agree with this argument, but I believe this person did have the rights of children in mind, and I respected their sincerity, if not their argument. Gay couples should have their rights, despite their leadership not having an ounce of finesse or respect for others.
 

child adoption is a government-licensed industry. it is subject to political oversight already. it is 100% politicized. the argument that gay parents would be defended unfairly if they were to abuse their children is politicizing adoption. This is a political argument against married couples' right to adopt based on a homophobic fear that gay parents are able to get away with beating their children better than straight parents.  I don't understand how you can respect that argument, or why their sincerity plays into it. I sincerely believe that is a homophobic argument, but that apparently doesn't carry as much weight as a hypothetical person who just doesn't like to be called a homophobe because it hurts their feelings.

[Krogenar]

Okay, so are you saying that it is logically questionable to be opposed to intolerance because that is a form of intolerance?

I am saying that it is unethical to declare that 'The Debate Is Over, You're Intolerant, Go Directly to Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200' and that desire and willingness to close down discussion is the hallmark of authoritarian censors.

I believe a lot of backlash to gay marriage is related to the meaning of the word 'marriage' -- gay couples have had the right to civil unions for a while now, which provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage. So this wasn't really about securing rights -- they had them -- it was about securing social normalization. And some people just aren't ready for that yet -- but that's okay, because gay rights leaders want to clash with these people. And, predictably, they're clashing.

Okay the fact that proposition 8 even happened should tell you that there are still people that want to take this away from others based on a prejudice against homosexuals . i would say homosexual behavior but i think it's probably a safe bet to say that anybody who wants to commit to one person of the same sex for the rest of their lives could reasonably be labeled a homosexual.

I don't care about Proposition 8, I don't care that the CEO may or may not have been wrong to support Proposition 8 -- the questions are how do we treat vanquished enemies? Do we rub their faces in the dirt? Do we root out anyone with any connection to a disproven idea, forever? That's what the thread is about, sth. It's not just enough to be in the right -- how you handle being right does matter. And I don't believe the gay leadership have handled victory with any grace at all.

Look at why Prop 8 was eventually overturned:

Interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion. Do politically vanquished foes get any quarter, any leeway to exist at all? If current events tell us anything, it is that the answer is, "No." -- if you disagree and you lose, go and die. Politically, ethically, that's a terrible precedent to set.

Sorry, did I miss something? What person is talking about a Gay Mafia? i don't care about the Gay Mafia. what about the millions of real people that are affected by real problems caused by real people that try to pass real laws because they believe in hypothetical arguments based on homophobic beliefs?

Yeah, you did miss something. But your paragraph illustrates the attitude that is the topic: how destructive is this attitude of demonizing your opposition and launching a perpetual witch hunt? What you have said is: "I don't care about a Gay Mafia what tactics are used. What about the millions of real people that are affected by real problems caused by real people that try to pass real laws because they believe in hypothetical arguments based on homophobic beliefs? I'm morally right, so silencing my opponents by any means is justified."

do you seriously think that the problem with allowing gay marriage, and the right to adopt, is that a hypothetical gay couple could adopt and abuse a child? do you really think that child abuse is the issue? really? that sounds like an entirely separate issue and claiming that allowing more people to adopt opens the door to abuse and specifically use that as ammunition to deny other people rights based on absolutely nothing rational, that's pretty low.

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't agree with that position. You asked me if I had ever heard a rational non-homophobic argument against gay marriage, and I provided you with one. I explicitly stated that I didn't agree with their argument. You would know this if you had taken the time to read what I said. My guess is that you were too busy reacting. The fact that the gay leadership actively tries to politicize everything is not sufficient to restrict other people's rights.

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

[sth]

Okay, so are you saying that it is logically questionable to be opposed to intolerance because that is a form of intolerance?

I am saying that it is unethical to declare that 'The Debate Is Over, You're Intolerant, Go Directly to Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200' and that desire and willingness to close down discussion is the hallmark of authoritarian censors.

I believe a lot of backlash to gay marriage is related to the meaning of the word 'marriage' -- gay couples have had the right to civil unions for a while now, which provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage. So this wasn't really about securing rights -- they had them -- it was about securing social normalization. And some people just aren't ready for that yet -- but that's okay, because gay rights leaders want to clash with these people. And, predictably, they're clashing.

Okay the fact that proposition 8 even happened should tell you that there are still people that want to take this away from others based on a prejudice against homosexuals . i would say homosexual behavior but i think it's probably a safe bet to say that anybody who wants to commit to one person of the same sex for the rest of their lives could reasonably be labeled a homosexual.

I don't care about Proposition 8, I don't care that the CEO may or may not have been wrong to support Proposition 8 -- the questions are how do we treat vanquished enemies? Do we rub their faces in the dirt? Do we root out anyone with any connection to a disproven idea, forever? That's what the thread is about, sth. It's not just enough to be in the right -- how you handle being right does matter. And I don't believe the gay leadership have handled victory with any grace at all.

Look at why Prop 8 was eventually overturned:

Interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion. Do politically vanquished foes get any quarter, any leeway to exist at all? If current events tell us anything, it is that the answer is, "No." -- if you disagree and you lose, go and die. Politically, ethically, that's a terrible precedent to set.

Sorry, did I miss something? What person is talking about a Gay Mafia? i don't care about the Gay Mafia. what about the millions of real people that are affected by real problems caused by real people that try to pass real laws because they believe in hypothetical arguments based on homophobic beliefs?

Yeah, you did miss something. But your paragraph illustrates the attitude that is the topic: how destructive is this attitude of demonizing your opposition and launching a perpetual witch hunt? What you have said is: "I don't care about a Gay Mafia what tactics are used. What about the millions of real people that are affected by real problems caused by real people that try to pass real laws because they believe in hypothetical arguments based on homophobic beliefs? I'm morally right, so silencing my opponents by any means is justified."

do you seriously think that the problem with allowing gay marriage, and the right to adopt, is that a hypothetical gay couple could adopt and abuse a child? do you really think that child abuse is the issue? really? that sounds like an entirely separate issue and claiming that allowing more people to adopt opens the door to abuse and specifically use that as ammunition to deny other people rights based on absolutely nothing rational, that's pretty low.

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't agree with that position. You asked me if I had ever heard a rational non-homophobic argument against gay marriage, and I provided you with one. I explicitly stated that I didn't agree with their argument. You would know this if you had taken the time to read what I said. My guess is that you were too busy reacting. The fact that the gay leadership actively tries to politicize everything is not sufficient to restrict other people's rights.

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

you are putting words in my mouth, accusing me of holding beliefs that you assume i hold, mis-interpreting and grossly oversimplifying my statements and using hyperbolic rhetoric to avoid directly answering my questions. weak.

[paicrai]

STAHP