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

[Jukai]

Yeah, im just terrified of homosexuals jukai, yeah, give yourself a pat on the back.:icon_neut

I may be an arachnophobic and a little bit claustrophobic, and out of control mobs of people are fearsome, but being scared of probably the least imposing people in the history of man is definitely not "right up there" in my list of fears, but yet again you are resorting the good old liberal playbook where you have to smear.

Tell me, why do you feel the need to smear?, does it feel good to smear?. if you have ran out of legitimate criticisms then its probably best to just shut the fuck up, but then again, I suppose that's where the smear factor comes in?, is smearology a good substitute to just ...shutting up?

I think you're smearing your own character by not knowing what "aversion" means, dude...

 

[glennrod]

Read the entire definition again slowly. You may not be averse to the people but you are to homosexuality. That is pretty clear by your posts in this thread. No one is smearing you at all.

No, I don't need to, I know what a phobia is, or has that definition been changed too?. if you would have read the posts in this thread then you would have seen that I took issue with the bullies who try and publically disparage people who hold traditional views. just because I think that having sex with a man is not an attractive idea to me, does that mean im scared of man-ass?, what, should I be fearful of a giant floating hairy arse that may track me down and mount my head and I might suffocate?. I really don't se the fear part at all, I just don't think that two men or 2 women should be able to get married, and so what?

 

[glennrod]

I think you're smearing your own character by not knowing what "aversion" means, dude...

yeah...still not seeing it.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Polygamy and homosexuality are totally different. Polygamy has proven negative effects both personally (read and read) and societally (here as well). Gay marriage hasn't shown anywhere NEAR the negative impact.

The basis of argument in that Slate article is laughable. Only someone who desperately wanted to find a moral/conceptual distinction between gay and polygamous marriage could possibly see it as anything other than a car crash.

"Jealousy! Eureka!"

However, I will admit to being ashamed of myself... In that, because I had never seen it elsewhere, I thought that I was the first person to devise and present the gay/polygamous marriage thing in the way I presented it here. Yet Charles "The Bitter Cripple" Krauthammer previously exposed the exact same logical inconsistency.

I am not such a special snowflake... :icon_cry2

 

[Jukai]

Glen, you don't know what a phobia means. It's not being scared, it's being irrational around the subject. It could manifest as being scared, it could manifest as being disgusted or enraged. I knew a guy who had a legitimate banana phobia, he wasn't scared, but the thought made him so disgusted he would gag.

So, again, that shoulda been another thing you brushed up on.

 

[Jukai]

The basis of argument in that Slate article is laughable. Only someone who desperately wanted to find a moral/conceptual distinction between gay and polygamous marriage could possibly see it as anything other than a car crash.

"Jealousy! Eureka!"

Great job, focusing on one article that was published in Slate (with citations to other articles) but ignoring the other three articles (one scholarly study, one empirical research book, and one other article which cites other studies). Bravo, it was beautiful.

You're probably amazing at dodge ball.

 

[IDL]

Glen, you don't know what a phobia means. It's not being scared, it's being irrational around the subject. It could manifest as being scared, it could manifest as being disgusted or enraged. I knew a guy who had a legitimate banana phobia, he wasn't scared

This sounds like something a guy would say right before he makes his move

Run Glen

 

[ncordless]

The fact that you, personally, appear to hold a consistent position on the issue does not make my previous argument a "straw man".

I have seen countless examples of gay marriage advocates, on the telly and in print, condemning, in no uncertain terms, any notion that polygamy should be recognized as a form of marriage by the state. They are as offended by a comparison between gay marriage and polygamy as Christians are by a comparison between traditional and gay marriage.

And it's simply not a morally credible stand.

One reason is probably because polygamy is a closer case. The big problem with polygamy is its association with a host of other problems. Most notably, polygamous marriages, probably mostly because of which Americans engage in them, tend to have consent problems, at least in the eyes of some. Can you consent when you're born and raised in a cult? However, where I think they get it wrong is using that as grounds for forbidding it outright as opposed to policing it for consent problems. Prove it's happening and stop it where it does as opposed to removing it from liberty writ large.

 

[Jukai]

This sounds like something someone would say right before he makes his move

 

[glennrod]

Glen, you don't know what a phobia means. It's not being scared, it's being irrational around the subject. It could manifest as being scared, it could manifest as being disgusted or enraged. I knew a guy who had a legitimate banana phobia, he wasn't scared, but the thought made him so disgusted he would gag.

So, again, that shoulda been another thing you brushed up on.

But not really though...because I have told you that I do not fear gay people. It doesn't manifest in anything. to be honest its the methods used to gain acceptance of the lifestyle that bothers me the most, it just mostly entails mud slinging from people like you. you have been fair with me in the past and even said that you didn't think I was a racist, which im grateful for, but you seem to be pushing the whole "homophobic bigot" thing a bit too hard in my direction.

I treat people the way they treat me and I wouldn't treat a gay person any differently if they needed my help, I just don't see that I shouldn't be repulsed by some of the things they do, I mean, I don't have to like that stuff do I?, I don't actually see that someone's personal sexual preferences are any of my business to be honest, I don't want to know, I don't give a shit.

Coming after me, smearing, or even looking down at me for not being as "enlightened" as you in that regard doesn't make me a bigot, it doesn't make me a Nazi and to be honest the whole schtick is getting a little bit tired now. am I a bigot because I think that 2 obese women tooling each other up is disgusting?, think about that for a second, because that is largely in the context the whole "homophobemania" angle has come from.

I don't believe that 2 men or 2 women should be allowed to get married, I don't give a shit if some dude likes to put things inside himself, it really is none of my business, I don't give a shit about some of these so called "hero's" that come out in public or whatever, I really don't want to know but these people want to MAKE it my business.

If they, or you want to try and push people with that leftist way of thinking then once in a while you will come across people who can see the whole charade for what it is, a load of bullshit, having a difference of opinion is one thing, but labelling people as hateful and such is played out

Some of the best people I have ever known don't support gay marriage, am I supposed to believe that these people who I know are good people are hateful people because they don't like the homosexual lifestyle?. sorry, not having it

 

[TheComebackKid]

I think it's better to grow up in a traditional family too--- not for any biological reason, but because of the stigma on gay people.

But you put a LOT of fucking energy in proving that gay adoption is worse on a child, especially on that ridiculous thread, and I can understand why people feel you are disingenuous. It's weird to defend a position so hard but not really defend the other side that you believe in. No one plays Devil's Advocate THAT hard.

And you put a lot of effort into trying to find a point of disagreement. We just established that we agree and here you are mining for something to disagree about. I'm not playing devils advocate or arguing for a side that I don't want to defend. All I've ever done is just argue my position.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Just calling a dishonest sack of shit for what he is...if that makes me a stalker I guess I'm a stalker. **shrugs**.

But I've wasted enough energy on this guy...we were having a pleasant conversation until he came along.

Oh wow this is getting sad. It makes you a stalker when you seek me out just to call me that or bringing me up in threads I'm not even apart of.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Oh wow this is getting sad

Dude, we got it...you crave attention...now please run along now.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Great job, focusing on one article that was published in Slate (with citations to other articles) but ignoring the other three articles (one scholarly study, one empirical research book, and one other article which cites other studies). Bravo, it was beautiful.

You're probably amazing at dodge ball.

Sorry, Teach, I have limited time when surfing/posting on Sherdog... I didn't even click on the other link. Please don't fail me. I'll do better with my assignments next time.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

TCK routinely shits up any thread about this sort of topic. The regular routine is to post a bunch of really stupid arguments against gay marriage which then get shot down page upon page. He does this for quite awhile, cycling through the same arguments in numerous threads. Then, after all his dumb arguments have been refuted he posts something to the effect of "Hey, wait a minute. I'm not actually against gay marriage."
It is quite silly and futile. Many of the posters in this thread have been down the same road with him and similarly find him to be insanely dishonest about it all.

Regardless, his comment in this thread about gay marriage and family dynamics is demonstrably dumb and was basically laughed at by the Supreme Court. His statement inanely argues for: 1) marriage only being allowed for couples able to reproduce, and 2) dissolving all marriages that have not, cannot, or will not in the future produce children.

Worthy of a repost.

 

[ultramanhyata]

One reason is probably because polygamy is a closer case. The big problem with polygamy is its association with a host of other problems. Most notably, polygamous marriages, probably mostly because of which Americans engage in them, tend to have consent problems, at least in the eyes of some. Can you consent when you're born and raised in a cult? However, where I think they get it wrong is using that as grounds for forbidding it outright as opposed to policing it for consent problems. Prove it's happening and stop it where it does as opposed to removing it from liberty writ large.

Agree. Relationships like the one represented in Big Love are not occurring in the context of an inbred, multi-generational, high-demand religious group and thus they don't suffer from these sorts of worrisome ills.

The fact is, ANY kind of relationship, be it parent to child or brother to sister or husband to (one) wife is going to be fraught with potential dysfunction/abuse if it operates within the confines of an extremist, totalitarian cult.

And even apart from that, "shit just happens", as they say.

For example, I think it's fairly well documented that gay men have more sexual partners, on average, than straight men and therefore have a higher incidence of infidelity in committed relationships than straights. Gay male relationships are also known to have higher incidences of physical abuse.

But, that being said, we can't reasonably declare this evidence that gay unions are ultimately dysfunctional and bad for society. And we should see issues of sexual abuse and consent within certain polygamous unions - wherever they might be - in the same light.

 

[ncordless]

Agree. Relationships like the one represented in Big Love are not occurring in the context of an inbred, multi-generational, high-demand religious group and thus they don't suffer from these sorts of worrisome ills.

The fact is, ANY kind of relationship, be it parent to child or brother to sister or husband to (one) wife is going to be fraught with potential dysfunction/abuse if it operates within the confines of an extremist, totalitarian cult.

And even apart from that, "shit just happens", as they say.

For example, I think it's fairly well documented that gay men have more sexual partners, on average, than straight men and therefore have a higher incidence of infidelity in committed relationships than straights. Gay male relationships are also known to have higher incidences of physical abuse.

But, that being said, we can't reasonably declare this evidence that gay unions are ultimately dysfunctional and bad for society. And we should see issues of sexual abuse and consent within certain polygamous unions - wherever they might be - in the same light.

As far as infidelity goes, I don't see how that's a legitimate government interest in stopping it. Whether it's an open marriage, cheating, swinging, or polygamy, I don't see the government interest sufficient to infringe upon private sex lives.

As far as the abuse goes, I agree. Even if there the percentages are higher, all that means is we got to try to stop it where we can and work to correct the problem over time.

And even then, to a certain extent we should let consenting adults form the relationships they choose and trust that people can choose how they have sex and form relationships better than we can.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I treat people the way they treat me and I wouldn't treat a gay person any differently if they needed my help

That's great, we all should try to do the same. Given that view, why then take a position that explicitly restricts the legal protections of homosexual couples relative to heterosexual couples? Those views are contradictory.

Your argument doesn't hold on some basis of traditional marriage because such a construct is relatively recent and has long been maleable. Your argument doesn't hold on the grounds of religion because you reject biblical literalism and reject certain biblical mandates about your own religion. Your argument doesn't hold because elsewhere you've stated that homosexuals should be discriminated against.

All that seems to be left is your distaste for homosexual behavior and that translating to a position that actively seeks to restrict legal protections for the group you disdain. How is that consistent with your comment that you treat people the way they treat you?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I haven't got a bad word to say about logical, but I did always get the impression that dochter "needs a winning side to be on", if you get my drift. I don't buy that whole "acceptance and equality" deal because they tend to only display it on one side of the argument, I have met many people that I strongly disagree with, but can still respect their opinions, (much like me vs you on the old Anderson vs fedor debates), it just seems that respect for an opponents position is non existent, its about smearing people through perceived intellect, its about one-upmanship. because this is a public message board, there is a lot of posturing going on. in a perfect world, we could have this whole debate run 100 pages and not have the word "bigot" come up once, but oh well....

I've found myself to often be arguing positions that then don't seem to hold up to argument. That usually results in me having to modify or change my position. That's not about having to be on the right side but rather trying to make sure that my positions hold up to scrutiny.

As for calling you a bigot, it is somewhat amusing that you object to that phrase given some of what you've said about gays. There's really nothing controversial about calling you a bigot in regards to your views on gays. I'm not sure why you find it so offensive, you keep talking about how disgusted you are by homosexuals and that you find their behavior sinister, etc. I'm not sure how you would not label your views as bigoted.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Illuminati is a distraction and a funny sounding name.

Not everything is orchestrated.

None of the other stuff will make sense out of context. Jukai knows this I'm assuming that's why he brought it up in order to try to discredit my other benign comment.

I love that basically this post is "yeah, the illuminati are behind pushing for gay marriage", with the caveat that you don't like the label illuminati.

Well done.