Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich forced to resign because he didn't support gay marriage.

[CajunCrimson]

it must make you feel bad that there are libs like me who are Bama fans

It breaks my heart

 

[Jon]

It appears that a judge in Ohio is about to strike down that state's gay marriage ban. Another win for democracy.

what makes you think we live in a democracy? Aren't you in politics, working for national campaigns? You'd think someone in your position would know we are a constitutional republic. We going to need a civics lesson?


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

 

[CajunCrimson]

Jesse Jackson: Gay marriage rights are not civil rights

SUMMARY: The Rev. Jesse Jackson declared Monday that the fight of gays and lesbians wanting to marry should not be compared to the fight African Americans faced for civil rights.

In Massachusetts, the state that's served as one of the main battlegrounds over same-sex marriage, the Rev. Jesse Jackson declared Monday that the fight of gays and lesbians wanting to marry should not be compared to the fight African Americans faced for civil rights.

"The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote," Jackson remarked in an address at Harvard Law School.

Later, in an appearance at Holy Cross Church in Worcester, Jackson made sure others knew that he did support some rights for same-sex couples, noting "Gays deserve the right of choice to choose their own partners."

"If you don't agree, don't participate and don't perform the service," he said, according to the Associated Press.

But Jackson reiterated his support for the heterosexual definition of marriage, saying, "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080522/posts

I wonder why Jesse wasn't fired? Or banned from Network TV?

 

[CajunCrimson]

Statement by President Bill Clinton
On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

Bill didn't get fired either, if I recall.....

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Bill didn't get fired either, if I recall.....

Bill was a poon hound. Plus, he hated his lesbo wife and anything he could do to tick her off, he would. Hypothetically speaking of course.

 

[Jon]

Seriously?

You should send that de Tocqueville guy a letter.

are you going to deflect this to a French Political Scientist writing in the 1840's or are you going to look at our actual form of Government?

We are not a Democracy, never have been and were never meant to be. No matter what old Frenchy calls his books and I'm actually a big fan of his works. (oh, and I've read them I have a Political Science degree from a University that you may be familiar with)

for fun here's some quotes from our founding fathers, though if you'd rather differ to the french guy that's cool I guess

http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion", the word Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with this quote, along with more warnings from others.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

 

[Tide1986]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Desirability is subjective.

Yeah, it is.

 

[Tide1986]

I doubt it. I worried about my kids being healthy while in the womb, not their sexuality.

Okay, your application for sainthood is in the mail. :rolleye2:

 

[G-VilleTider]

I doubt it. I worried about my kids being healthy while in the womb, not their sexuality.

Since it is a genetic abnormality that causes homosexuality (according to most research), you are worrying about both at the same time.

 

[CajunCrimson]

This thread has definitely jumped the shark.

This seemed appropriate

 

[Jon]

This thread has definitely jumped the shark.

deleted

but seriously? Not even going to try and reply?

 

[Crimson1967]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080522/posts

I wonder why Jesse wasn't fired? Or banned from Network TV?

I'd be in favor of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[uafan4life]

Man, this thread kind of blew up. Imagine that.

Anyway, I might as well throw in my $0.02 worth...


First, on the whole 'homosexuality is/isn't a choice' thing...

It either absolutely is a choice or it most likely is not be a choice, depending upon the perspective - and it is both at the same time. There is a difference between the terms or concepts of "sexual preference", "sexual lifestyle", and "sexual attraction" - all of which are used to either describe and/or define homosexuality. Even though they are often used interchangeably they are actually very different things. A person's "sexual preference" and "sexual lifestyle" are most certainly that person's choices. A person's "sexual attraction", however, is most likely not a choice - the caveat there being that it is possible for a person's sexual attraction to be altered or at least influenced over time, though to what extent is both debatable and unknown.

- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to only women while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with women in monogamous relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is heterosexual, his sexual preference is heterosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is heterosexual monogamy.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to only men while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with men in monogamous relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is homosexual, his sexual preference is homosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is homosexual monogamy.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to both women and men while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with women in polygamous relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is bisexual, his sexual preference is heterosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is heterosexual polygamy.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to only women while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with men either within or without of relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is heterosexual, his sexual preference is homosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is homosexual polyamory.
- A man could be naturally, subconsciously, sexually attracted to only women while choosing to not engage in sexual activity with anyone for his entire life. His sexual attraction is heterosexual, his sexual preference is asexual or celibate, and his sexual lifestyle is celibate.
- A man could have no discernible natural, subconscious, sexual attraction to anyone while choosing to only engage in sexual activity with women in monogamous relationships for his entire life. His sexual attraction is asexual (or non-present), his sexual preference is heterosexual, and his sexual lifestyle is heterosexual monogamy.

You can change these around to your heart's content - switching between men and women; heterosexual, homosexual, etc.; monogamy, polygamy, etc. - and the end result is always the same: a person may not be able to control their natural, sexual attraction (whether or not they have one) but they can always control or choose whatever they want for both their sexual preference and sexual lifestyle.

There is a genetic component to sexual attraction and it's not really the same as a predilection for the taste of chocolate or the color red, for example; it's more related to a compulsive instinct. However, it's certainly not the be-all-end-all when it comes to a person's sexual preference. In fact, even the so-called "gay gene" (which is a misnomer) isn't the be-all-end-all when it comes to a person's natural, sexual attraction. In several of the studies searching for the "gay gene", the markers identified as being indicative of a genetic homosexual attraction were not always present in homosexual subjects (and by a significant amount) and were also found in a significant number of heterosexual subjects who showed no subconscious homosexual attraction in testing (i.e., they weren't just "lying"). So, while we know that genetics can contribute to a person's sexual attraction, there are other factors at play there as well.



Second, on the 'homosexuality versus pedophilia versus beastiality' thing...

I can't really speak to anything regarding beastiality, so I'll leave that one out. And I'll replace it with alcoholism. While there are certainly big ethical, civil, and societal differences between those three things they are actually very related. There have been a few studies into genetic or hereditary links with regard to pedophilia and a plethora with alcoholism. If you look at those studies, you'll notice a few things. One, there does appear to be a genetic factor (a "pedophile gene" or an "alcoholic gene", if you will) that seems to be present in most test subjects with these dispositions - though most of the pedophilia research has focused on neurological factors and references to genetic factors usually use phrases like the research "suggests" or "shows probability" of a genetic factor. Also, subconscious testing - such as implicit association testing - of many of these subjects often resulted in raised serotonin levels and sexual arousal (the latter being interesting really just for the alcoholism part). Finally, many of the cases showed that subjects with these dispositions (or conditions) showed traits of compulsion regarding them.

How does this relate to homosexuality?

Well, the studies into genetic factors for homosexuality - as mentioned above - have shown that there is a genetic factor, that subconscious testing with homosexual subjects often resulted in raised serotonin levels and sexual arousal, and that homosexual subjects showed traits of compulsion regarding them. And there are other, more technical similarities between all three genetic factors.

So, while there are obviously big differences between homosexuality and pedophilia as well as alcoholism, from a genetic or neurological perspective they're actually quite similar.



Third, on the whole 'gay marriage' thing...

For the love of sanity, why can't we just do away with marriage entirely from a civil, legal, governmental perspective? Let's let marriage - the act, the definition, and the very existence - be determined only by the individuals directly involved in a particular marriage and their respective familial and religious factors (if there are any) and keep the Federal, State, and Local Governments out of it completely. Let's have the Government(s) concern themselves only with civil unions, which would be a binding legal contract for related tax and legal purposes, that can be enacted between any number of individuals making up a "household" with only whatever terms and conditions are applicable to those purposes - regardless of whether or not there is any sexual or familial relationship between the individuals. That way the Government isn't telling anyone who they can or can't "marry", doesn't have anything to do with marriage or separation or divorce, and is only concerned with the creation and dissolution of "household entities".



Finally, on the actual thread topic...

Mozilla is a private company and they are entitled to hire and fire anyone they choose or do not choose for any reason that is not a direct violation of that individual's constitutionally granted civil rights. While the CEO certainly has a right to voice his opinion, he does not have the right to avoid any consequences that follow the voicing of that opinion. And, while Mozilla is within their rights to fire him for that, he is certainly within his rights to be angry (if he is) for having been fired for simply voicing his opinion - just like anyone else has the right to be angry for being fired simply for voicing their opinion, be it for or against any social or political or even moral stance. Or even regarding your boss' bad toupee. He (or the proverbial 'they') is still fired, the company goes on with its business (as best as it can without him), and the world keeps turning. Beyond that, there really isn't anything to this particular "issue".

 

[cuda.1973]

Because you didn't consider stopping using them their business wasn't hurt? You know how all of this started?

No, please tell me, because frankly I don't care.

OkCupid, a site that averages 10 Million unique users a month recommended that their users switch browsers. If you are not familiar with OKC's demographic I promise you it is exactly the kind of users Mozilla aims for and losing them hurts a lot more than losing you. Most people I know that hold your views tend to be Internet Explorer and only hold a vague idea that there are other options anyway. (seriously check the demographics, older people tend to believe as you do and IE's Demo's range older)

Prejudice alert!!!!!!!!!!!

You know a lot less about me, and people like me, than you pretend to know. All use Mozilla, and were among the "early adapters", so to speak. I could go on, but since you reply with "bigot" or "bigoted", for everyone who does not adhere to whatever it is that you believe, so why go on?

I would never consider myself liberal as their economic theories are demonstrably wrong but I'll answer it anyway.

So there is hope for you.

I am totally pro-polygamy. I have zero rights or frankly desires to tell 2 or 3 or 7 consenting adults what kind of mutually beneficial or detrimental relationships they should be allowed to enter into willingly. I am 100% pro freedom. As long as every enters into it willingly and is above the age of consent it is no ones business but their own.

Ok, so we have one person in favor, and the rest of the real libs silent. I wonder why?

Finally the whole, approved think-speak du'jour angle is just so played out. It's really over, the moral majority was never real or if it was it has died off.

You must not be as old as I am. I'll leave it at that.

The scales have tipped and gay marriage will be fully legalised in this country inside of 20 years whether you agree with it or not. Du-jour? Yes it is, right now at this time most people are totally cool with gays and letting them be free, this is a good thing. You are going to dismiss it because it finally happened? That's your right. Your kids and theirs will look back at you the way we look at our grandparents that believed the races shouldn't mix, with sadness and a little pity.

Well, you have no idea what it is that I actually believe. There are other posts that I will address.

But, since we seem to disagree: I think you are a bigot. Bigoted and prejudiced against people who you think are wrong.

How does it feel? You jump to an arbitrary conclusion, and frankly probably wrong. But since it doesn't conform to your think-speak, I am wrong, and therefore a bigot.

 

[NationalTitles18]

There are a lot of issues here. Mr Eich spoke his mind and it cost him a very lucrative job. Mozilla had financial pressure placed on it by at least one other private entity. In the end, Mr Eich resigned, albeit under pressure. This is somewhat chilling. There was some controversy about the list of donors being made public for just that reason and true to form the more hardcore activists have decided to behave like we'd expect them to behave. Many people have now learned if they didn't know before that if you alienate the wrong group that it may cost you a leadership position at a number of companies. To make one thing clear, this was not a political campaign donation for a candidate, but for a cause. I'd have more a problem with the former than with the latter, but the troubling thing is how far down the corporate ladder will these kind of tactics will go? Do lower leadership positions need to be concerned for ticking off the wrong groups as they express their political and/or religious ideas? Must everyone conform to one way of thinking?

In a broader context, the same "one opinion fits all" idea is making its way through other industries - perhaps most notably the health fields. I've seen many a folk say that a pharmacist should be forced to carry (in his own store) or dispense drugs which violate his conscience or lose his license to practice. Same for doctors or nurses that refuse to participate in abortions. Is this tolerance? No.

On another note, the bully pulpit will only get you so far and will alienate a number of people who might otherwise support you. Over the years I have actually come to support gay marriage or civil unions conveying the same rights because it seems the right thing to do to me. It is the simplest and easiest and most cost-effective way of allowing anyone to make their own choices regarding a number of issues including who visits them in the hospital, who makes health care decisions for them when they can't make their own, inheritance issues, and the like. If you know a better way, please let me know. Getting government out of marriage altogether is simply unrealistic. Government has always and will always be involved in something so central to society, It just seems to me that using reason and compassion are more likely to persuade people to come around to your way of thinking than bullying to shut out dissenting views. Calling someone a bigot will never earn you a friend. It is very effective at shutting people up, though.

As for the polygamy arguments - whatever floats your boat. What 2 or more consenting adults do is no business of mine.

Overall, I find Mr Eich's situation combined with the Duck Dynasty and other situations concerning for the future of free expression because when those with great power and money effectively eliminate the voice of a great number of people through bullying tactics...well, I think that should concern anyone. Of course, some will be happy with this outcome and moan and whine over the Ellen and JC Penny situation. Others will have the opposite view. Both concern me to some degree or another, but most people will just blindly support the people who support their own cause/opinion without thinking of the broader implications.

That's part of my opinion, for what it's worth.

 

[92tide]

Man, this thread kind of blew up. Imagine that.

Anyway, I might as well throw in my $0.02 worth...

remind me never to ask you for change

 

[Jon]

No, please tell me, because frankly I don't care.



Prejudice alert!!!!!!!!!!!

You know a lot less about me, and people like me, than you pretend to know. All use Mozilla, and were among the "early adapters", so to speak. I could go on, but since you reply with "bigot" or "bigoted", for everyone who does not adhere to whatever it is that you believe, so why go on?



So there is hope for you.



Ok, so we have one person in favor, and the rest of the real libs silent. I wonder why?



You must not be as old as I am. I'll leave it at that.



Well, you have no idea what it is that I actually believe. There are other posts that I will address.

But, since we seem to disagree: I think you are a bigot. Bigoted and prejudiced against people who you think are wrong.

How does it feel? You jump to an arbitrary conclusion, and frankly probably wrong. But since it doesn't conform to your think-speak, I am wrong, and therefore a bigot.

that was a late night, beer fueled rant and I apologize for getting too personal with it. I made many assumptions about your views without evidence which was unfair

 

[cuda.1973]

The issue of "is it morally right or wrong" falls apart because it is between two consenting adults. Anything beyond that, from a government perspective, is purely subjective and opinion. It does not matter if you believe it is dictated from God Almighty - that's not the government's place to decide.

Besides, this is a debate about gay marriage, not the morality of gay sex. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage is not a simple religious institution, and has not been for many centuries. The association of wealth, inheritance, insurance, property rights and the thousand other items that go hand in hand with marriage has made it a LEGAL institution.

You're well within your rights to say gays should not get married in your church. That's a private organization.

It is a different story altogether to apply those religious beliefs to the benefits conveyed through the marriage of two individuals. If you feel otherwise, then why can a judge perform a wedding? Why does it take a court to get a divorce?

This gets to the root of the problem: gubbament and church being intertwined. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. I'm not a big fan of "the church", but much less a fan of "the state". Since this is about what the state can do, let's stick with that.

Marriage is a union, between a man and a woman, designed to set up a family structure, that will allow society to continue on, from one generation to another. Just because a judge, or an Elvis impersonator, can perform a "marriage ceremony", does not make a true marriage. I find the latter a farcical mockery of marriage. (Almost as farcical as some aquatic ceremony, where some watery tart pulls forth a sword from a pond and...........wait, getting off track.)

Do I care if 2 dudes live together? No.

Do I care if one of my dearest friends, who lost his wife of almost 50 years, now lives with a young lady, who suffered the same of her husband? No. He feels bad, that he is living in sin. But, he stood in front of the Rabbi, and took an oath, loyal to separation by death. And he stood by it. He did what was pledged, so I don't see why he should now feel sin or guilt. (BTW, he is a rabid Hillary supporter, who still has butt-hurt, over how she got screwed over. We avoid talking politics, the last 5 years, as he knows I am waiting to play the race card. And I will! Gladly.)

On a pragmatic note, why should he ever consider marriage? Since marriage is now tied in with the gubbament, with community property, and inheritance issues, can you imagine the crapstorm that would ensue when a bunch of 50-something kids start fighting over which part of which estate goes where? He may want to get married, to alleviate his guilt, but it makes no sense.

The only way to solve this is to get gubbament out of the marriage bidnis.

Issues of community property, inheritance, and all other related issues, are the domain of the gubbament. The church has nothing to do with that. Nor should they. (They have their hands full, if you are Catholic, that if you are divorced, you can not take Communion. That is their bidnis, not the gubbament's.)

The issues above sound more like contract law, than religious law. Where issues regarding those will be addressed in the courthouse. Since the issue of "gay marriage" is about issues that really have this at its core, and not about 2 dudes living together, why shouldn't the state and church functions of marriage be totally separated?

For those of you who may not be aware, Oklahoma (the only state where not one single county voted demoncrat, in the last Presidential election), has legislation along these lines, slowly trying to make its way through the legislative juggernaut. I guess that makes them bigots.

Right, Jon????????????????

I guess the next problem you will have is if anyone other than..........I dunno.........Episcopalians and Unitarians decide to marry gay couples. Who, having already filled out their "statement-of-cohabitation-and-community property" at the courthouse, what to go to their church, and have its blessing. (Why they would want that, and then kvetch if the church says "Sod off!" evades me, but then I am not gay, so what do I know?)

Somehow, I think you will never be satisfied. But I could be wrong. Something I doubt you will ever admit to.

We are all just bigots on the bus.

 

[twofbyc]

:lurk5:

 

[skrayper77]

Since it is a genetic abnormality that causes homosexuality (according to most research), you are worrying about both at the same time.

That just means it's God's fault.