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

[glennrod]

And WHERE in our constitution does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman? The definition of marriage was a RECENT thing when gays finally began to become accepted enough where they wouldn't be beaten for asking for the right to marriage.

The truth is, marriage WAS always open and people are suddenly nullifying gay marriage. That's exactly the case.

Also, I'm... really confused about your last sentence. If Canada suddenly stopped clubbing seals, would you get ANGRY about it? Because you're getting angry at the thought of gays suddenly being allowed to get married.

marriage was not always open, that's false,, you act like im a kid or that I am so ignorant as to not see whats going on here. gay marriage wasn't even a discussion, let alone a practise over here til recent years, and if Canada stopped clubbing those cute little fur balls I would celebrate it as I think they are adorable

People are using the constitution to make their cases. More specifically it is usually application of the equal protection clause of the 14th that people argue as being a main basis. That has nothing to do with "hate speech".
I've no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

I was referring to homosexuals crying about hate speech...because THAT never happens :icon_neut

 

[UpaLoompa]

Sure, because of the first amendment.

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.

The problem is, when you start making sexuality a protected class, that brings in aberrant (and often illegal) sexual preferences which the person may not have any control over.

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.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I was referring to homosexuals crying about hate speech...because THAT never happens :icon_neut

Tell you what, how about we both donate to the ACLU and help fund their defenses against state/federal sanctioning of hate speech?

I find the views of the KKK despicable, deplorable, and condemnable. I still think they should be able to voice them.

 

[glennrod]

Massachusetts has had SSM for 10 years. Where are the lawsuits?

Why can't you name a SINGLE gay rights advocacy group pushing for it?

Coalition for Equal Marriage
Out4Marriage, both established in England in 2012
the first major campaign for same-sex marriage was Equal Love established by Peter Tatchell in 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[UpaLoompa]

marriage was not always open, that's false,, you act like im a kid or that I am so ignorant as to not see whats going on here. gay marriage wasn't even a discussion, let alone a practise over here til recent years

What you define as "marriage" is a very new construct. You don't get to appeal to "always that way" when you're demonstrably wrong.

 

[TheBox]

Coalition for Equal Marriage
Out4Marriage, both established in England in 2012
the first major campaign for same-sex marriage was Equal Love established by Peter Tatchell in 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Can you provide some press releases or mission statements that indicate that these groups support forcing churches to perform SSMs?

Also, are you British?

 

[glennrod]

What you define as "marriage" is a very new construct.

Not in relative terms it isn't, "very new"...nope

 

[UpaLoompa]

Coalition for Equal Marriage
Out4Marriage, both established in England in 2012
the first major campaign for same-sex marriage was Equal Love established by Peter Tatchell in 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

So, in short, you can't actually demonstrate what you're saying is obvious.

 

[glennrod]

Can you provide some press releases or mission statements that indicate that these groups support forcing churches to perform SSMs?

Also, are you British?

I don't need to find a press release or anything like that, as we say in England "it does what it says on the tin"

 

[TheBox]

marriage was not always open, that's false

The institution of marriage has changed greatly over time.

There has never been some singular definition that has been locked down over time.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Not in relative terms it isn't, "very new"...nope

Polygamy was legal in the US less than 150 years ago. Interracial marriage was illegal in some areas less than 60 years ago.
Yes, it is quite new.

 

[glennrod]

So, in short, you can't actually demonstrate what you're saying is obvious.

look at the NAMES of the groups, you would have to be one stubborn bastard to carry on with that argument...oh wait

 

[TheBox]

I don't need to find a press release or anything like that, as we say in England "it does what it says on the tin"

Yes, you do. Because I have no reason to believe any of these groups advocate forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages.

 

[glennrod]

Polygamy was legal in the US less than 150 years ago. Interracial marriage was illegal in some areas less than 60 years ago.
Yes, it is quite new.

as it should be

 

[UpaLoompa]

look at the NAMES of the groups, you would have to be one stubborn bastard to carry on with that argument...oh wait

You keep going back to this UK example and UK groups. As mentioned gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004.

 

[ncordless]

Not in relative terms it isn't, "very new"...nope

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.

 

[glennrod]

Yes, you do.

no I don't :icon_neut

 

[Denter]

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?

 

[UpaLoompa]

as it should be

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.

 

[Jukai]

marriage was not always open, that's false,, you act like im a kid or that I am so ignorant as to not see whats going on here. gay marriage wasn't even a discussion, let alone a practise over here til recent years, and if Canada stopped clubbing those cute little fur balls I would celebrate it as I think they are adorable

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.