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.
Oh, please! Where have conservatives ever attempted to control a woman's "access" to birth control? Even Catholics, are not prevented from using it, even though the Church's position has not changed.
Abortion is another matter, as it takes a human life, and not only does it take a life, but has taken the lives of children well beyond what is the current "viable" age (such as the heinous practice of "partial birth abortion).
This is why they have fought to change the definition of marriage, and separate it from any religious origins.
Homosexuality and so-called homosexual marriage is a perversion. It always will be, no matter how hard Leftists try to "normalize" it.
Here we go again. Your opinion is that it is not acceptable to voice our view. How hypocritical! "Free speech for me, but not for thee." Right?
This goes beyond the debate over marriage, which is what I tried to point out in my original thread, before it was hijacked and added to this one.
This is a debate about whether we will continue to have Free Speech in America, which is something that Progressives would love to eliminate, as part of their campaign to get rid of the Constitution. It is a discussion that needs to take place, but again, was shut down on this forum when my OP was moved here, making it only about the Mozilla scandal.
If those people who support homosexual marriage allow conservatives to say that being anti-homosexual marriage is not based on bigotry/homophobia, but on religious beliefs, then the fight over homosexual marriage will never end and conservatives will use the shield of religion to promote their anti-homosexual agenda.
But you can't get around the fact that it IS based on religious beliefs. It's not against my personal religious beliefs, but there is an over 2000 year old text that has passages that says it is wrong. Just because my interpretation of how to follow that text differs doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their interpretation. It is not like all the sudden, out of the blue, they started conveniently saying it was against their religion since this SSM debate began. They have been saying it is a sin a long, long time before this nation existed. Get it through your head, they genuinely think it is a sin, and that is a religious belief, plain and simple. I am sorry it is inconvenient for your cause, or is an affront to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an invalid argument.
Glad you at least did a little research, though it took prodding. Or, were you withholding information to strengthen your weak point? Two weeks is an unimportant time period; other than he is a man who understands that the idea of Mozilla is more than he. It is why he reluctantly accepted the draft by the BOD in the first place. The Directors who were for him and then resigned were small people, without principle.
the numbers of employees who 'wanted him gone' were not even in the left's magical, (a reference that you may not grasp if indeed you are not a citizen of the great United States), majority.
Now as to the reference alluding to 'mobs' (most specifically James Madison's discussion in Federalist paper number 10, but others as well). If you are indeed a foreigner it is is understandable that you might not understand the historical context of the Federalist papers, in which the quite eloquently discussed various forms of government were regarded and then discarded in favor of the Constitutional Republic. The founders did not favor, nor want a true democracy, in which, as they characterized it, "Mob Rule", ruled.
So, again as your lack of understanding demonstrates, this is not some misguided fear, or homophobia; rather that it is counter to the basic principles of how this country was formed, what it is based upon and how conservatives in general - though I speak only for myself - view the off with his head mentality of the various 'rights' movements.
If you are a citizen of The United States, then you have only your lack of civics education to blame. That, laziness, or a willingness not to engage in substantive discussion.
Mr Eich is much more than a programmer, though yes he was at one time; ~ 20 or ~25 years ago. Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance. Sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
He was CEO for only 2 weeks. Mozilla's own employees wanted him to step down as CEO. 3 directors resigned. Clearly they didn't feel he was the right person to lead and represent Mozilla as a company. Just because someone is a good programmer, doesn't mean they will make a good CEO.
They have been saying it is a sin a long, long time before this nation existed. Get it through your head, they genuinely think it is a sin, and that is a religious belief, plain and simple. I am sorry it is inconvenient for your cause, or is an affront to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an invalid argument.
People have held all sorts of religious beliefs over the millennia that we find not merely distasteful but morally repugnant today: slavery, blood sacrifice—even human sacrifice. Which beliefs are acceptable and which are not? Who is the arbiter?
Dont anyone ever try and claim that the media isnt biased and corrupt. To equate being against gay marriage to the Westboro scum is despicable, false, and goes to show you how journalism is dead.
I don't see a lot of difference between people who go out of their way to advocate against same-sex marriage - and the Westboro Baptists. The Westboros are a little more honest and less hypocritical about their hatred towards gay and lesbian people maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11
On another note. I wish I could convince these radicals that the internet and the service providers dont support gay marriage.
That might be difficult, since the opposite is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11
How nice would it be to have our internet free of these radical bullies.....
I'm sure your granpa would have thought the same thing about the pesky radical women bullies who demanded the right to vote - if they had the internet 100 years ago.
In the first place, Brendan Eich is not a bigot because he supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Second of all, upholding the right of Free Speech, which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, does not make the State a "nanny state" in defending that right. It is the duty of government to uphold and defend the Constitution, and to guarantee our rights.
Words mean things. You need to learn the definition of "bigot." It would seem to me that you may fit that definition, but Brendan Eich does not.
Yadda, yadda, yadda ... the Right always claims it doesn't support bigotry but it always supports the continuation of it. If it looks like a duck and it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck ... and "traditional definition of marriage" is a duck that you are trying to pass off as a swan.
You want the government to interfere in the private business decision of a private company that didn't violate any law in order to shield somebody from the consequences of his own person actions. How is that not an outright appeal to "Nanny State" mentality?
Uninstalled Mozilla Firefox last night. Will be sending their Board a letter letting them know that on Monday.
Great. Better uninstall Internet Explorer and Google Chrome and Opera too... and wait.....are there any browser software companies who don't support gay rights?
And what operating system do you use? Microsoft? Apple? Better uninstall those too. Brand of Computer?
Hmmm....I guess that's why you will have to send a letter instead of an email.
But you can't get around the fact that it IS based on religious beliefs. It's not against my personal religious beliefs, but there is an over 2000 year old text that has passages that says it is wrong. Just because my interpretation of how to follow that text differs doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their interpretation. It is not like all the sudden, out of the blue, they started conveniently saying it was against their religion since this SSM debate began. They have been saying it is a sin a long, long time before this nation existed. Get it through your head, they genuinely think it is a sin, and that is a religious belief, plain and simple. I am sorry it is inconvenient for your cause, or is an affront to your beliefs, but that doesn't make it an invalid argument.
No, this is wrong and here is why In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs.
Here is why from a brief filed in Loving v Virginia: “I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” a psychologist said. “Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage.
Here is why Deut. 7:1-4 or Genesis 28:1:
”So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him and commanded him: “Do not marry a Canaanite woman.” Throughout the history of the church, Canaanites have been commonly associated with people of African descent, thus fueling the interpretations leveled against interracial marriage. God’s people are not only warned against marrying Canaanites, but they are cautioned against marrying anyone outside the group.
Here is why Scott v. Georgia (1869): This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
People don't get it this argument is old and the same and has been had many times before. People always attempt to say their bigotry is justified because it is a religious belief. If this society would have allowed opposition interracial marriage to viewed not as racial bigotry but as religious objection, we'd have a lot more opposition to interracial marriage.
As a society if you deem being anti-homosexual marriage as just based on religious belief, then you get a more anti-homosexual society one in which opposing the right of homosexuals to marry will be seen as a legitimate viewpoint to hold and a legit viewpoint to pursue legislatively.
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.
