Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

Status
Not open for further replies.
ncordless said:
In relative terms, it most certainly is.

The definition you are thinking of is a early- to mid-twentieth century construct.

Considering marriage has existed for at least 5,000 years, your definition applies to the last 1/50 of the history of marriage.

Even if we limit to the foundations of legal recognition of marriage, your definition is recent. The traditional definition of marriage is that a marriage is where two people become one, and the man is that one. Traditionally, women literally lost their separate personhood in marriage.
Click to expand...

ok, I see your point, I just find it hard to call things "recent" when they happened over a hundred years ago. you are right though
 
Dochter said:
So then you agree that what constitutes marriage has recently changed. Great.
That, along with recognizing that people shouldn't be discriminated against because they're gay gets you pretty far down the road to recognizing that your stance on gay marriage isn't tenable.
Click to expand...

No, I was being sarcastic
 
Jukai said:
Ok, so we can scratch off the clubbing seals thing as another strawman, thanks.

Marriage always has been open. Why do you think it's not in the constitution? It was supposed to be left up to the states. Now, the whole "let's leave it up to the states" ideology kinda died after they refused to give up slavery and started the Civil war, but I digress--- marriage was totally undefined and more about tradition and taboo (which included no marrying black people). "Between man and woman" was a 90s thing, bud.
Click to expand...

You're projecting
 
It's becoming very clear than Glennrod thinks that the founding fathers added a law saying marriage was between a man and a woman. He has no idea how recent our definition of marriage actually is.
 
Denter said:
Dochter said:
Actually, no. Religious affiliation is explicitly recognized as a protected class according to Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior to that it was legal to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion.


I don't know if this is a red-herring or some other logical fallacy but, regardless, it is silly and either sloppy or disingenuous argument. Illegal sexual preferences aren't going to get the same protections because they're generally based on one side failing to or being unable to consent.[/QUOTE]

Age of consent laws have changed greatly over time, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes. Of course, consent laws changed over time as well. There was a time when you could marry a 12 year-old. She didn't have to consent. You just needed the consent of her father, usually obtained via payment.
Click to expand...
 
glennrod said:
No, I was being sarcastic
Click to expand...
No, you actually did agree that the definition has changed. Which is what I said. I was well aware you were being sarcastic on the other part.

So, to summarize, you don't think people should be discriminated against based on their sexuality and you recognize that the definition of marriage has changed recently. What are your objections to legal recognition of gay marriages?
 
ncordless said:
Yes. Of course, consent laws changed over time as well. There was a time when you could marry a 12 year-old. She didn't have to consent. You just needed the consent of her father, usually obtained via payment.
Click to expand...
Honestly it is a tired argument that I don't think anyone really believes. Denter isn't an idiot, he's just trying to find some shred to hold on to. I'm sure he recognizes the silliness of that particular argument.
 
By the way, some of you guys are great, and I mean that, aside from the arguments we have had, I always have respected your opinions, especially logical, jukai and dochter. I don't want to see any of you get bent out of shape and start to be hateful because I represent a more traditional viewpoint. While I may be stubborn on the issue, and less "radical" than you commies, I don't hate any of you for supporting gay marriage, so don't define me by this single issue
 
Jukai said:
It's becoming very clear than Glennrod thinks that the founding fathers added a law saying marriage was between a man and a woman. He has no idea how recent our definition of marriage actually is.
Click to expand...

and now you are projecting like a crazy out of control projecting machine that projects projectors. settle down sir and take a breather
 
I define you by your hatred of me using gifs as responses. That's how I will always remember you, Glennrod.

glennrod said:
and now you are projecting like a crazy out of control projecting machine that projects projectors. settle down sir and take a breather
Click to expand...

But the crux of your argument is that gays are trying to CHANGE the definition of marriage which, to you, is traditional. Others have pointed out that there is no 'traditional' definition of marriage that the US legally recognizes, and that it has been federally changed twice while changed at the state level god knows how many times.

You threw out the whole "well, I believe in the Church's definition of marriage" when you said you'd tell the Church to fuck off if they judged your life. So the question is, where are you getting this traditional definition of marriage, because it doesn't EXIST in America, which constantly changes its definition of marriage.
 
glennrod said:
By the way, some of you guys are great, and I mean that, aside from the arguments we have had, I always have respected your opinions, especially logical, jukai and dochter. I don't want to see any of you get bent out of shape and start to be hateful because I represent a more traditional viewpoint. While I may be stubborn on the issue, and less "radical" than you commies, I don't hate any of you for supporting gay marriage, so don't define me by this single issue
Click to expand...
I can't hate on a man who has cro cop in his avatar
 
Dochter said:
No, you actually did agree that the definition has changed. Which is what I said. I was well aware you were being sarcastic on the other part.

So, to summarize, you don't think people should be discriminated against based on their sexuality and you recognize that the definition of marriage has changed recently. What are your objections to legal recognition of gay marriages?
Click to expand...

well Its also a matter of not wanting them to get what they want by shouting the loudest, that is a dangerous precedent. I think those who troll people and try to bully their way into institutions like that should be sellotaped in a phone box and launched into space
 
glennrod said:
well Its also a matter of not wanting them to get what they want by shouting the loudest, that is a dangerous precedent. I think those who troll people and try to bully their way into institutions like that should be sellotaped in a phone box and launched into space
Click to expand...
You've just launched the whole civil rights movement into space.
Who is going to advocate for these groups if no one is supposed to advocate?
 
glennrod said:
(D)on't define me by this single issue
Click to expand...
I tend to avoid defining people based on single issues but I do think that it is correct to say that on this issue you are bigoted.
 
Jukai said:
I define you by your hatred of me using gifs as responses. That's how I will always remember you, Glennrod.



But the crux of your argument is that gays are trying to CHANGE the definition of marriage which, to you, is traditional. Others have pointed out that there is no 'traditional' definition of marriage that the US legally recognizes, and that it has been federally changed twice while changed at the state level god knows how many times.

You threw out the whole "well, I believe in the Church's definition of marriage" when you said you'd tell the Church to fuck off if they judged your life. So the question is, where are you getting this traditional definition of marriage, because it doesn't EXIST in America, which constantly changes its definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

its what I grew up with, I think marriage is a beautiful thing, I don't think that a couple of men who can only primarily sodomise each other should be a part of that. I like what marriage is to a family, I like the traditions, I like the picture it paints in my mind, if I see two men walking down the aisle together, im like "he's gonna stick his thing up his stinkbox". it completely degrades it in my mind, and to see them include god in the vows is not only stupid, its kinda sinister when I think about it...
 
glennrod said:
its what I grew up with, I think marriage is a beautiful thing, I don't think that a couple of men who can only primarily sodomise each other should be a part of that. I like what marriage is to a family, I like the traditions, I like the picture it paints in my mind, if I see two men walking down the aisle together, im like "he's gonna stick his thing up his stinkbox". it completely degrades it in my mind, and to see them include god in the vows is not only stupid, its kinda sinister when I think about it...
Click to expand...

Gay couples can have families as well...and why does that image immediately pop in your head when you see a gay couple? Do you picture straight couples having sex when you see them?
 
I see we're stilling throwing around words like bigot to those who disagree with us. How intellectually bankrupt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,993
Messages
58,475,115
Members
176,048
Latest member
gibberish

Share this page

Back
Top