Are we going to keep trampling on all our freedoms in the name of ... freedom(?) and then blame it all on China?
EDIT: I knew some people were going to try to spin it into something it wasn't.
Just because you don't call for somebody to be killed doesn't mean you don't hate them.
We have to be able to compartmentalise what people are wrong about that affects their work and what they are wrong about that does not. It is distasteful to support someone who is obnoxiously wrong but their being excellent at what they do has to count for something.
Dunno what the story is for this specific political spat at Mozilla; but compartmentalising "relevant to my work" and "irrelevant to my work" is a fundamental plank in the wobbly structure of civilised society. Even the most rabid will support some aspects of freedom and not others. Support compartmentalisation, even if in this case it meant he was the wrong man for the job and had to go.
It also turns out raising children also is not negatively affected by the parents being gay. (Plenty of studies on the subject, go read some).
Leaves actually having children. Is your argument that we all should breed? Then your argument is seriously broken, the world is about 300% over capacity already.
So, no - it's still rooted in hate. (Or fear, really)
I am and always were in favor of gay marriage as long as marriages were a thing(as in, i'd rather they not exist as a "formal" thing), but this hyperbolic nonsense that the only possible reason there is disagreement on it is because they hate the gays and nothing else is just silly.
By the way today a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or whatever, can have children , and in that case should provide a stable home for them. In my country most gay couples that bother about marrying, usually also want to raise children and provide them with a stable home.
This' "gays" are destroying family values', is a silly fallacy, because these marrying gays, WANT a family.
Saying Your family is OK and their family is somehow dangerous reeks of hate. .
The point is that differentiating between a gay couple and a straight couple on anything (other their sex organs) is just absurd and without any hold in reality. Even if there was a significant difference between these couple regarding child rearing, the burden of proof is on you. The fact that marriage between man and woman is old and known doesn't mean it is good, or better than other types of couples.
Most people who assume this difference, assume it a priori to any knowledge or facts. People who want to limit others because of ignorance is called hatred in my book, even if some of your best friends are gay...
You could easily say, that holding negative opinions on something strongly enough that you act upon them, without any proof of that thing being dangerous or bad is a sign you are prejudice about that thing.
Now being prejudice is not evil in my opinion, but if you value being prejudice more than finding out the actual reality of your negative assumptions, makes you pretty much the text book definition of a bigot.
It's curious that I've never seen anyone campaining against childless marriages, only against gay marriages.
Once you strip away the modern day cultural norms of what is acceptable freedoms and not, and begin to consider other arguments and social views as to what counts as freedom, you find most anyone out there fights to strip freedom from others. Sometimes under the guise of protecting them, but not always.
The same people condemning this person from the freedoms he opposed likely support removing freedoms from others for ageist reasons.
You know, 40+ years ago, if you brought up legalizing gay marriage many would have seen it as attacking interracial marriage. Even 5 to 10 years ago I met many people who held the view that it was an insult and attack on interracial marriage to bring up gay marriage.
Today, if I bring up possible future rehashings, I think people would react the same, thinking instead I was attacking and insulting gay marriage. I wonder how long in the future before we see history repeat again.
Do you rail against society every time abortion is referred to as an "issue"? Seems like an important one, whether or not we think terminating a fetus is moral or immoral.
Do you get upset if you look at a political candidate's campaign website and see a link to a page called "issues"?
You perceived a slight that was not there.
I think / thought it was messed up that two people who love each other, regardless of gender (please don't lay into me for using that word if it's incorrect), could be denied visitation rights at a hospital. That doesn't mean I cannot refer to it as "an issue."
Marriage yields children. Making new people grows a civilization. The state would definitely want to incentive any means to grow a civilization. In the modern day, these incentives look like tax deductions. Gay marriage doesn't yield children. Why should the state give the same incentives?
My solution: The State shouldn't create incentives for people to get married. People will get married because they want to.
People REALLY hate the idea that they’re responsible for things they haven’t even conceived of.
> Just because you don't call for somebody to be killed doesn't mean you don't hate them.
Just because you disagree with somebody about policy, it doesn't mean you must hate them. Unfortunately, nowdays it appears to be almost mandatory.
That doesn't make you any less hateful.
With newly known ones, I feel bad, and then I try to understand how I could be better.
I’m not sure I understand your question.
"Prop 8 would not and did not "nullify" any marriages licensed by the state in the middle of 2008. See
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive...
Retroactive or ex-post-facto law is unconstitutional. I am a big fan of this principle. It protects all of us."
I did not support nullification, and it was never going to happen, because it would have been unconstitutional, as then-AG/once-and-future-governor Jerry Brown said. What's more, Prop 8 actually passed, and no nullifications occurred.
You chose your bed to lie in, part and parcel - because that's how voting on & supporting propositions works. You don't get to claim post-hoc you were only supporting parts of it.
I voted for Obama in 2008, but I didn't endorse everything he did or stood for. If you voted for him, were you at that time lying in bed with his rejection of marriage equality? Answer honestly, and by your own phony standard! You don't get to claim "post-hoc" that you were clairvoyantly counting on him to "evolve" in 2012.
Your reply is deeply dishonest.