Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some ideas should not be embraced or tolerated. At least not given deference to as equal or valid to all other opinions. Examples:
Segregationists have no place in modern America. Neither do those who think women should not have the vote, or that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry.
The time for suffering fools on those issues is OVER, and it is approaching that time vis-à-vis gay rights.
Their "ideas" should not be embraced or tolerated. Being "for diversity" does not mean you have to embrace anti-diversity viewpoints with open arms. I don't know where you all came up with the idea that it has to.
And those that are AGAINST diversity shouldn't try to use it as a shield to protect their own opinions while simultaneously working against diversity, because anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can see right through your manufactured outraged and blog marching order talking points!
The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman should not be tolerated?
I don't agree with that idea, but since it's a key point of many people's religious beliefs, and we hopefully still have freedom of religion in this country, I'm thinking the idea should be tolerated.
The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman should not be tolerated?
The idea that it is ONLY a man and a woman can be tolerated about as much as the idea that people shouldn't use electricity (Amish), eat pork (Jews and Muslims), or have to donate 10% to the church (Pentacostal).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I don't agree with that idea, but since it's a key point of many people's religious beliefs, and we hopefully still have freedom of religion in this country, I'm thinking the idea should be tolerated.
The moment you take the NEXT STEP, however, and start telling other people that because YOU believe marriage is only a man and a woman, then those two ladies over there CANNOT get married, is where you cross a line.
And frankly, some religions have repugnant points of view. If I want to avoid people who have ideas that are anathema to me, then I have the right to do so as much as they have the right to hold their regressive ideals. To force ME to accept THEIR ideas as "equally valid to mine" is crap and violates MY right to associate or disassociate with anyone I damn well please.
This isn't Coke vs. Pepsi here, folks, this is toying with peoples LIVES, their FAMILIES, and their financial security and future.
Equal to? No. But both vary. Embracing diversity is the goal, as well as one of Mozilla's company values. That is, until they persecuted Eich. Now, they just value fascism.
Equal to? No. But both vary. Embracing diversity is the goal, as well as one of Mozilla's company values. That is, until they persecuted Eich. Now, they just value fascism.
Errr.... no.
Eich wasn't opposed because he was a Christian (that would be against diversity).
Eich was opposed because he used his brand of Christian beliefs, money and influence to oppress others and attempt to strip away their freedoms.
You have a curious definition of fascism where what Eich did is "diversity" and what others did to oppose him is "fascist." You may need a new dictionary.
The idea that it is ONLY a man and a woman can be tolerated about as much as the idea that people shouldn't use electricity (Amish), eat pork (Jews and Muslims), or have to donate 10% to the church (Pentacostal).
The moment you take the NEXT STEP, however, and start telling other people that because YOU believe marriage is only a man and a woman, then those two ladies over there CANNOT get married, is where you cross a line.
And frankly, some religions have repugnant points of view. If I want to avoid people who have ideas that are anathema to me, then I have the right to do so as much as they have the right to hold their regressive ideals. To force ME to accept THEIR ideas as "equally valid to mine" is crap and violates MY right to associate or disassociate with anyone I damn well please.
This isn't Coke vs. Pepsi here, folks, this is toying with peoples LIVES, their FAMILIES, and their financial security and future.
Don't take this the wrong way, because I support your rights to marry whomever you please. It isn't my business, nor should it be anyone elses business. And yes a lot of religious points of views can be repugnant, due to us as humans to twist them to suit our agenda. If you want my opinion, I believe Christ's message is much simpler than we make it out to be. Nevertheless, people have their beliefs, and you ask that they not force their beliefs on you, yet you are doing the very same thing, by demanding that they throw their beliefs out the window and subscribe to your point of view. And then if they don't comply you use force, and bully tactics to try and change them. How is that productive? How is that garnering support for your cause for those who may be on the fence about the issue? Again, I support your equal rights, because they are our natural born rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. However; you cannot force people to go along with you, and by doing so, you're creating more animosity and hindering your cause. In fact, it could have negative results, and cause those who do stand with you in support to no longer do so.
He gave $1000 in opposition to same-sex marriage. When you go after the 35,000 other donors who gave as much or more to the same political movement, when you determine that those 35,000 other donors don't deserve to be employed and you boycott their employers and pressure their employers to fire them, then you'll be consistent.
Were any of those people appointed as CEOs of a global company which states it's core values are diversity and equality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Mr Eich made a legal political donation that reflected his very private and personal position.
Donations to the campaigns were public. That campaign was one of the most vicious campaigns against gay people I've ever seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The policies he helped put in place in Mozilla treated all of the homosexuals that worked there with complete respect. He never advocated treating any homosexuals with less than respect.
Is there a reason you keep using the word 'homosexuals'? Just curious. People who have gay and lesbian friends don't tend to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
To believe that same-sex marriage is wrong is not disrespect of homosexuals.
"Hey, I don't 'disrespect' you. I just don't believe you and the person you love (and your family if you have children) are entitled to the same protections under the law as me and the person I love. And I'm going to contribute to a campaign that vilifies you as child predators as well as eliminates your right to marry the person you love. But hey. I don't disrespect you."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It's not a position that makes sense to me, but I have no bonds with any established religion or traditions that might influence my position. I respect the religious beliefs of others, and the sometimes fanatical reverence for traditions that some people have. I have a fanatical reverence for the Constitution of the United States. One of the reasons I revere it so much is because one of the underlying principles is freedom of thought and opinion and belief. No matter how crazy those thoughts, opinions, and beliefs might seem.
So what about when those crazy thoughts, opinions and beliefs turn into actions? Like voting away the rights of other people? And what about that equal protection clause?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I disagree with Mr Eich's opinions about same-sex marriage. I vehemently disagree with them. I believe that marriage itself is a form of expression. Each marriage is unique, defined by the two people who make the commitment to be partners for life in every aspect of that life. How they define the marriage is an expression of who these people are, and what their values are. It's an expression of their characters and their personalities and even their souls. To deny any group of people the right to make such a profound statement about who they are, to deny those people the right to publicly affirm that statement as a matter of legal record, is simply wrong in my eyes.
It's also a legal contract that gives legal protections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
But I know others don't agree with me. And according to the Constitution, their opinions have equal weight. I can try to persuade them of the rightness of my opinion, and they can try to persuade me of the rightness of theirs. Both sides benefit when both sides accord respect to the other side, even while disagreeing. When we threaten a person's livelihood because he doesn't agree with our viewpoint, we've crossed a line. We aren't trying to persuade the other side, then, we're trying to intimidate and bully the other side.
Would you give equal weight and respect to the opinions of people who were actively working to strip you of your rights to equal protection under the law? People who were actively harming you and your family?
The idea that it is ONLY a man and a woman can be tolerated about as much as the idea that people shouldn't use electricity (Amish), eat pork (Jews and Muslims), or have to donate 10% to the church (Pentacostal).
The moment you take the NEXT STEP, however, and start telling other people that because YOU believe marriage is only a man and a woman, then those two ladies over there CANNOT get married, is where you cross a line.
And frankly, some religions have repugnant points of view. If I want to avoid people who have ideas that are anathema to me, then I have the right to do so as much as they have the right to hold their regressive ideals. To force ME to accept THEIR ideas as "equally valid to mine" is crap and violates MY right to associate or disassociate with anyone I damn well please.
This isn't Coke vs. Pepsi here, folks, this is toying with peoples LIVES, their FAMILIES, and their financial security and future.
The problem with your narrative is that the timeline is off. No one is taking the NEXT STEP, we aren't "starting" to tell people they can't marry because marriage is only between a man and a woman. That's not the NEXT STEP. That's where we started. That's point A.
The people opposed to same-sex marriage aren't crossing a line. They are being dragged across that line, and they are resisting. Proposition 8 was a heinous piece of legislation, but it was part of this process. When a society makes major changes, major resistance occurs. It's part of the upheaval.
I too find that some religions have repugnant points of view. But we aren't talking about "some" religions. The Catholic Church is a major religion, globally, with millions of members, and represents a major portion of the religious in this country. The Church of Latter-Day Saints is a major religion, globally, with millions of members, and represents a major portion of the religious in this country. Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, and so on.
You can avoid people whose ideas are anathema to you, but you can't avoid the ideas. And you can't avoid that the people who hold those ideas are entitled in this country to try to validate their ideas using the political process. And you shouldn't want to avoid that reality, because that's when we need you most, to speak up with your own ideas, to fight the good fight against these ideas. The good fight is a battle between ideas. It is not intimidation and bullying. It is not targeting an individual whose opinions contradict yours. The good fight is a battle between ideas. In the United States our system is designed for conflicting ideas and opinions. Its design depends on that conflict, that tension. That's the balancing act. Balance depends on tension.
What happened with Mr Eich was not a good fight between ideas. It was not balanced. It was not fair. It was suppression of Mr Eich and his opinions because his opinions have lately become unpopular. They weren't unpopular 6 years ago. Our society has experienced a major change. And the winners of that major change took their revenge on someone who resisted that change. That was wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
