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

[glennrod]

So this is what you're reduced to. I'm citing logistical reasons for why groups of people can't get married. You claimed that someone could make a similar argument for why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married. What is that argument? Why are you so hung up on "inclusiveness"?

I said that gay marriage doesn't work and I cited the part where you said "it doesn't work given what marriage means". marriage is a union between a man and woman, so gay marriage doesn't work either. that's the point I was tring to make, but yet again a liberal wants to me to jump through hoops for him and play silly word games. just great :icon_neut

 

[glennrod]

So this is what you're reduced to. I'm citing logistical reasons for why groups of people can't get married. You claimed that someone could make a similar argument for why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married. What is that argument? Why are you so hung up on "inclusiveness"?

And just to be clear, no I didn't, I just used the same thing you did when you said "that's not what marriage means these days" or whatever, I even agreed that there are no logistical reasons for gays NOT to be married, jeez....

EDIT: I appeared to have edited that part out, but I do agree that there are no logistical reasons for gays not being allowed to marry

 

[Jack V Savage]

I said that gay marriage doesn't work and I cited the part where you said "it doesn't work given what marriage means".

That was a reference to the logistical problems I referred to. Please try harder to understand what you're reading before responding.

 

[glennrod]

That was a reference to the logistical problems I referred to. Please try harder to understand what you're reading before responding.

I don't care what you were referring to, I picked out the same words that you did to use in my own favour. oh wait, im not allowed to do that...:icon_neut

 

[James Keith]

And plurals obv. Not very inclusive of you.

And let's not forget about single people. They can't legally check that box on the 1040 either.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't care what you were referring to, I picked out the same words that you did to use in my own favour. oh wait, im not allowed to do that...:icon_neut

No one's stopping you from resorting to that kind of thing, but I would think ethics--never mind. Alien concept to the WR right.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Because you feel, even though you are not a polygamist, that you would be fine with polygamous marriages being called civil unions, that justifies withholding the title of marriage for gay marriages? That's some pretty dumb reasoning.

Why should gays have to compromise? They are and will continue doing just fine by not compromising, but instead eradicating the lingering effects discrimination, of which, refusing to call their marriage a marriage is one.

Life in a democracy should be about mutual respect and the ability to compromise.

Traditionalists give up legal recognition but get to keep the "brand".

Gays give up the brand but get the full legal recognition.

Only someone with the mind of a willful, petulant child would have a problem with this deal. People who want to rub the noses of those they have defeated in the dirt sicken me. You must be a big fan of the way our Congress does business these days.

Hey, does it drive you crazy that we have different names for groupings of different birds, too?? A skein of geese. A murder of crows. A colony of seagulls. Oh, the horror!!

 

[m52nickerson]

I said that gay marriage doesn't work and I cited the part where you said "it doesn't work given what marriage means". marriage is a union between a man and woman, so gay marriage doesn't work either.

The word marriage has many definitions, not just a religious one. Plus the definitions of words change all the time. Calling it marrage or something else is not going to change what happens in the world.

 

[glennrod]

The word marriage has many definitions, not just a religious one. Plus the definitions of words change all the time. Calling it marrage or something else is not going to change what happens in the world.

yeah, because everyone knows that the word that rhymes with maggot and begins with "f" means "bundle of sticks"

Im sure that nobody would get offended if I started calling everyone a ******, because everyone knows im talking about a bundle of sticks :icon_neut

 

[TheComebackKid]

I don't think it is dangerious at all. Public pressure like this is only going to work you have a large majority of the public in agreement. Right now the mojority of people think that it is wrong to not allow same sex couples to marry. That trend is going to continue.

So its ok to go on witchhunts when the person you are witchhunting is in the minority opinion? That sounds like an extremely dangerous way of thinking and operating.

The majority opinion could switch and now gay marriage advocates are in the minority. I don't think it would be good if the public started pressuring people who support gay marriage to lose their jobs and ability to support their families.

Again, this will always be a potential byproduct of free speech and capitalism but its not a good byproduct and if society was smart they wouldn't set such a precedent.

 

[TheComebackKid]

so you're citing "logistical" reasons to deny a group of people their "basic rights"?

thats not very inclusive of you

Yeah I always found this point of view a bit strange. Of course you would have to make some logistical changes to make it work but if marriage is a basic and fundamental right (as opposed to a privilege based on a specific concept) then you should make whatever changes necessary so that we don't deprive people of their basic, civil rights.

But thats, ya know, if you're being consistent.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Not really. Logistically, it doesn't work given what marriage means these days (how is a dissolution resolved in that situation, for example?). There's no similar issue with regard to homosexuals--that's just straight up discrimination.

It's funny you would say this, given the issue of child custody following divorce. As we know, in this country, the mother is almost always given predominance in the arrangements.

Yet in the case of two men, married, with children, there is no "mother" anywhere in the equation. And in the case of two women married, with children (assuming the children are adopted) there is no obviously determined "mother".

Whereas, in a polygamous relationship, the question of motherhood is never in doubt. Thus the approach to child custody, based on the traditional marriage precedent, may be applied without amendment.

Should we therefore say that, just as the added logistics of property dissolution make polygamous marriage a societal non-starter, so too do the added logistics of child custody make gay marriage an idea whose time should never come?

 

[Jukai]

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.

Whoaaaa sorry I posted a FULL four links for ya. Since I'm sure you only spent 2 seconds and saw "Slate" and closed the link, I didn't want to waste six other seconds of your time!

Good on you for continuing to dodge my post, though!!

 

[ultramanhyata]

Whoaaaa sorry I posted a FULL four links for ya. Since I'm sure you only spent 2 seconds and saw "Slate" and closed the link, I didn't want to waste six other seconds of your time!

Good on you for continuing to dodge my post, though!!

I get it... You detest polygamists. And find the way they choose to enter into loving, nurturing, sexual relationships with one another disgusting and unhealthy. And you only read the articles and "research" on the subject that supports your feelings.

Hey, here's a statistic... Over 50 percent of traditional, one-man-one-woman marriages end in divorce... And the research shows that divorce can have an extremely negative psychological impact on the children involved. So I guess we can render the "scientific" judgment that traditional marriage is ultimately very bad for society.

I believe that consenting, adult individuals should be free to form whatever committed, sexual relationships they deem best for themselves. And that if the laws of a state bestow certain legal/financial "blessings" on one version of such relationships it must bestow them on all.

And I could give a shit less what names a society chooses to give these unions. As long as the underlying legal recognition and protections are the same.

Just call me Hitler.

 

[Jukai]

I get it... You detest polygamists. And find the way they choose to enter into loving, nurturing, sexual relationships with one another disgusting and unhealthy. And you only read the articles and "research" on the subject that supports your feelings.

Hey, here's a statistic... Over 50 percent of traditional, one-man-one-woman marriages end in divorce... And the research shows that divorce can have an extremely negative psychological impact on the children involved. So I guess we can render the "scientific" judgment that traditional marriage is ultimately very bad for society.

I believe that consenting, adult individuals should be free to form whatever committed, sexual relationships they deem best for themselves. And that if the laws of a state bestow certain legal/financial "blessings" on one version of such relationships it must bestow them on all.

And I could give a shit less what names a society chooses to give these unions. As long as the underlying legal recognition and protections are the same.

Just call me Hitler.

I'll call you either a massive overreacter or a disingenuous prick. I wouldn't use Hitler, that'd be silly.

If you'd actually clicked on any of my links and read for longer than two seconds, most of them compared two-person marriages to polygamy marriages. Which, you know, would be obvious if you read the fucking links I provided instead of arguing against the things you didn't actually read.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If you'd actually clicked on any of my links and read for longer than two seconds, most of them compared two-person marriages to polygamy marriages. Which, you know, would be obvious if you read the fucking links I provided instead of arguing against the things you didn't actually read.

Dude, I went back and looked at the links before my previous post. What do you want, a point by point refutation of some kind?

The primary ground was already covered by myself and others earlier in the thread... There are dynamics (having nothing to do with polygamy) that are going to radically affect findings when you're studying sociological outcomes among members of either middle-eastern cultures or (for lack of a better term) American cult cultures and comparing them to outcomes in mainstream, Western civilization.

Being pro-gay marriage and anti-polygamy is an emotion-based and completely hypocritical, biased position. I have, and will continue to, stand by that assertion.

I will add that I, personally, find the idea of holding hands with a man and taking a walk in the park just as disgusting as the idea of kissing my wife goodnight before she heads to her other house to sleep with her other husband. But in a free society, to each their own.

 

[Jukai]

Dude, I went back and looked at the links before my previous post. What do you want, a point by point refutation of some kind?

The primary ground was already covered by myself and others earlier in the thread... There are dynamics (having nothing to do with polygamy) that are going to radically affect findings when you're studying sociological outcomes among members of either middle-eastern cultures or (for lack of a better term) American cult cultures and comparing them to outcomes in mainstream, Western civilization.

Being pro-gay marriage and anti-polygamy is an emotion-based and completely hypocritical, biased position. I have, and will continue to, stand by that assertion.

I will add that I, personally, find the idea of holding hands with a man and taking a walk in the park just as disgusting as the idea of kissing my wife goodnight before she heads to her other house to sleep with her other husband. But in a free society, to each their own.

You didn't really look at the links.
First off, again, the study compared two-person married couples to polygamy married couples from the same area. Not America compared to Pakistan.
Yes, some of the studies focused on impoverished areas where the practice is common, but the link revolves around polygamy helping keep the areas impoverished.

And I'll repeat again as you are trying to paint me in a negative light because it appears to help your hapless argument, I'm not saying these reasons are enough to deny polygamists the right to get married, but I'm saying because of BOTH the logistical AND the mental/societal adverse effects that doesn't exist with gay marriage, it should be viewed as a completely separate issue.

Do you understand? Or should I break out some hand puppets for you?

 

[Gervinho]

I get it... You detest polygamists. And find the way they choose to enter into loving, nurturing, sexual relationships with one another disgusting and unhealthy. And you only read the articles and "research" on the subject that supports your feelings.

Hey, here's a statistic... Over 50 percent of traditional, one-man-one-woman marriages end in divorce... And the research shows that divorce can have an extremely negative psychological impact on the children involved. So I guess we can render the "scientific" judgment that traditional marriage is ultimately very bad for society.

I believe that consenting, adult individuals should be free to form whatever committed, sexual relationships they deem best for themselves. And that if the laws of a state bestow certain legal/financial "blessings" on one version of such relationships it must bestow them on all.

And I could give a shit less what names a society chooses to give these unions. As long as the underlying legal recognition and protections are the same.

Just call me Hitler.

What are the stats on divorce in polygamy marriage compared to traditional marriage? I work with a guy that has 2 wives and he seems very content. But on the other hand men have been having more than one wife for 100s of years and they seem to have lived on.

 

[TheBox]

What are the stats on divorce in polygamy marriage compared to traditional marriage? I work with a guy that has 2 wives and he seems very content. But on the other hand men have been having more than one wife for 100s of years and they seem to have lived on.

I'd bet they're extremely low given that polygamists tend to be highly religious and patriarchal.

 

[Gervinho]

I'd bet they're extremely low given that polygamists tend to be highly religious and patriarchal.

I have no problem with consenting adults entering in marriages like this. And people even in banned countries enter them, just keep it quite