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

[7437]

This is a perfect example of the free market. I love when conservatards get a comeuppance about the free market. The market determined the guy is a bigot and a liability so the company then determined that it was in their financial interest to have the guy step down. Libertarianism in practice.

the libertarians and right wing chodes love the free market as long as it produces the right result, such as discriminating against women, gays and minorities

when the free market works against their self interest it's a problem all of a sudden

fucking hilarious

thats quite a generalization. im a libertarian and see no problem with how the free market handled this.

 

[drowningidiot]

And when you debate it in its own merits you end up using the sane arguments that are used for gay marriage: consenting adults, tolerance, bigotry, marriage being athe fundemenral right, ect.

And those who argue against it used the same arguments that are used against gay marriage: polygamy is icky, its harmful, marriage has traditionally been between two people, ect.

I'm just explaining why polygamy gets brought up so much in these discussions. It's a strategy employed by gay marriage opponents in an attempt to attach a big list of other things they don't like to gay marriage and force proponents to waste time and resources defending them all, and to scare people on the fence. They bring up polygamy for the same reason they bring up beastiality, phelia, and man on toaster marriage. It's a hacky attempt to pad their shitty arguments.

There's actually some reasonable concerns about polygamy that don't apply to gay marriage. They usually revolve around creepy religious nuts who use it as an excuse to fuck little girls and run their male competitors out of town. And of course there's a ton of logistical questions. Personally, these wouldn't be compelling enough to get me to vote for some prop 8 style ban if polygamists started getting big wins in court but they are at least grounded in reality unlike certain people who just pluck passages out of the bible. Simply acknowledging this doesn't necessarily make someone a hypocrite.

The arguments against gay marriage on the other hand? They're all pseudo-science and religious nonsense. Just pure unadulterated garbage. You might have noticed the traditional marriage side manages to get thoroughly shit on every time they go to court.

From Utah:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...onents_drop_mark_regnerus_debunked_study.html

Disgraced

 

[TheComebackKid]

There's actually some reasonable concerns about polygamy that don't apply to gay marriage. They usually revolve around creepy religious nuts who use it as an excuse to fuck little girls and run their male competitors out of town. And of course there's a ton of logistical questions. Personally, these wouldn't be compelling enough to get me to vote for some prop 8 style ban if polygamists started getting big wins in court but they are at least grounded in reality unlike certain people who just pluck passages out of the bible. Simply acknowledging this doesn't necessarily make someone a hypocrite.

Polygamysts just want to fuck little girls huh? Sounds like when people would claim homosexuals are philes who just want to fuck little boys.

And since when are logistical concerns reason enough to deny people of their fundemental rights?

The arguments against gay marriage on the other hand? They're all pseudo-science and religious nonsense. Just pure unadulterated garbage. You might have noticed the traditional marriage side manages to get thoroughly shit on every time they go to court.

From Utah:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...onents_drop_mark_regnerus_debunked_study.html



and Michigan:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ge-trial-gay-people-go-to-hell_n_4914470.html



So, again, if and when polygamy comes to the forefront and fought out I'll make the following predictions:

a) a few people will bring up Warren Jeffs and the potential for abuse but this probably won't be a big enough factor to swing it either way.
b) the heart of the opposition will be comprised of the same Christian wingnuts who are currently fighting gay marriage and because of this it will probably fail since those guys are really bad at arguing stuff.
c) a few hundred bored people will go for the world record

Good thing I'm not actually doing this.

I have no clue what youre talking about

 

[LazyFatass]

(since rights related to taxation are one of the only governed by state recognition of couplings, and as a result are one of the only practices where equality concerns me)

Goes quite a bit beyond taxation.

In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions - ranging from obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners' eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor) - in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving "benefits, rights, and privileges".

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf

 

[panamaican]

Goes quite a bit beyond taxation.



http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf

Yup. It's simply absurd how much the federal government is apportioning to married couples vs. single ones.

The only legitimate way to fix those regulatory and benefit based imbalances to strike that stuff from the tax code altogether. It ends the foolishness of the inequality debate since the only area where the government's marriage definitions matter to anyone are when it comes to economic benefits.

Additionally, most of the marriage based benefits don't really make sense to me.

 

[TheBox]

Yup. It's simply absurd how much the federal government is apportioning to married couples vs. single ones.

The only legitimate way to fix those regulatory and benefit based imbalances to strike that stuff from the tax code altogether.

Good luck.

Ending marriage benefits? Why do you hate FAMILIES?

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

the fuck? yes it is.

there's nothing inherently bigoted about wanting marriage to be between a man and a woman and civil unions to be for homosexuals.

This.

 

[UpaLoompa]

This.

It may not be bigoted but under current laws it would indeed be discriminatory.

 

[panamaican]

Good luck.

Ending marriage benefits? Why do you hate FAMILIES?

Who doesn't? Amirite? With all that love and support and "till death do us part" foolishness. Sign me up for hate, do it yourself and "I'm going to get you before you get me."

That there is living the dream.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

It may not be bigoted but under current laws it would indeed be discriminatory.

Whats the big deal? If both groups have the exact same rights, what is the deal? Who cares what you fucking call it? Serious question.

 

[TheBox]

Who cares what you fucking call it? Serious question.

Apparently the people who need to create a new term and prevent gay couples from using the original one care what it's called.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

Apparently the people who need to create a new term and prevent gay couples from using the original one care what it's called.

Even if their rights are the same? You didnt quote that. All rights are equal. Two different names. Why do people care should be the question then. Marriage is a religious term. Let the coo coo christians have that. Civil unions is a non religious term. Let the gays have that. Let both have the same rights. I dont see the big deal.

 

[TheBox]

Why do people care should be the question then. Marriage is a religious term.

Marriage is a legal term, and it's the legal institution that equality advocates are fighting for.

Let the coo coo christians have that. Civil unions is a non religious term. Let the gays have that. Let both have the same rights. I dont see the big deal.

Let both have the same rights, with the same term.

Being religious doesn't given you a monopoly on a word.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Whats the big deal? If both groups have the exact same rights, what is the deal? Who cares what you fucking call it? Serious question.

Here's my proposal:

"Marriage" for one-man-one-woman.

"Queerage" for same-sex.

"Shagage" for polygamy.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Whats the big deal? If both groups have the exact same rights, what is the deal? Who cares what you fucking call it? Serious question.

Civil unions don't have the same rights though. Moreover marriage, in this context, is a legal construct. The fact that it also has a religious meaning is irrelevant unless we completely do away with marriage as a legal construct and only recognize civil unions (which I'm fine with).

As for different names legally too, historically there are issues with such things in a civil rights context.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Let both have the same rights, with the same term.
Being religious doesn't given you a monopoly on a word.

Do not get me started! I'm still outraged over the fact that, even though a penis and a vagina are both reproductive sex organs, and even though one is no "greater" than the other, relative to their function, society refuses to use the same exact word for both. Time to set prejudice aside and step out of the dark ages, people.

 

[TheBox]

Do not get me started! I'm still outraged over the fact that, even though a penis and a vagina are both reproductive sex organs, and even though one is no "greater" than the other, relative to their function, society refuses to use the same exact word for both. Time to set prejudice aside and step out of the dark ages, people.

Why would we use the same word for them when they are completely different organs with different functions? To make them the same word would only instill confusion.

That's not at all the case with straight versus gay couples and the word marriage.

Your sarcasm fails.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Why would we use the same word for them when they are completely different organs with different functions? To make them the same word would only instill confusion.

So are you suggesting we should use different words for "sex" and "intercourse" when it is a penis/vagina act vs. a penis/penis act?

 

[TheBox]

So are you suggesting we should use different words for "sex" and "intercourse" when it is a penis/vagina act vs. a penis/penis act?

We do.

Sex is an umbrella term. Intercourse involves penetration (and would not include a penis/penis act). Penis/vagina acts are called vaginal intercourse, and are distinct from anal intercourse. Oral sex is another category that itself separates into cunnilingus and fellatio.

Can you give a good reason for making a marriage vs civil union distinction?

 

[TheComebackKid]

A heterosexual union and a homosexual union are different physiologically, conceptually, and have much different effects on society. If we wanted to create different terms to refer to things that are physiologically, conceptually, and tangibly different then I dont' see what is wrong with that. It just depends on what society wants to do.