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

[UpaLoompa]

A heterosexual union and a homosexual union are different physiologically, conceptually, and have much different effects on society.

This again?
You've routinely asserted this but have never provided any support for it.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

This again?
You've routinely asserted this but have never provided any support for it.

Im sure he will provide proof right after people like you provide real proof that people are born gay.

 

[hitcher]

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.

>Hey Pan,

I heard of this documentary named Divorce Corp (on the Adam and Dr. Drew podcast) which shows a rather grim view of the Marriage / Divorce process and how it is designed to not actually solve problems amicably, but rather enrich lawyers. Have you heard of this doc or seen it?

Trailer:



The trailer is edited in a very dramatic way which usually means something is off. Just wanted to get your take on it.(or any other lawyer)

 

[Tension]

Is the separate but equal phrase being thrown around here? what year is it?

 

[Tension]

Im sure he will provide proof right after people like you provide real proof that people are born gay.

It is likely many factors. I do not doubt there is a strong genetic and epigenetic component.

 

[JaPo]

Im sure he will provide proof right after people like you provide real proof that people are born gay.

It's a similar problem with you, o'dub. Were you born stupid? Were you exposed to excessive levels of stupid hormones in the womb? Did your early life experiences make you stupid? Or, just for the fun of it, did you choose to be stupid, knowing full well it might leave you open to discrimination and a compromised position in society? Answers on a postcard please.

 

[Madmick]

Goes quite a bit beyond taxation.

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

I misspoke. I intended "fiscal", but yeah, apparently there is a more gaping difference than I was aware. This is where absolute equality is imperative.

Give me some time to hunker down with my research team before I attempt to refute your scientific criticism of my intentionally absurd and sarcastic mixed-race study proposal.

Here is someone's idea of an economic bombshell: If you compare the standard of living of a household containing a single, male breadwinner, his one wife and the offspring produced by that wife, you will find that it is significantly higher, on average, than the standard of living of a household containing a single breadwinner, his three wives and the offspring produced by those wives.

Are you suggesting we, as a society, base our allowance of individual and collective rights on economic performance and net worth? (More extensively and overtly than we already are, that is.)

No, clearly I am not. I'm deconstructing the inconsistent internal logic of what appeared to be a classic neocon religious angle purporting to establish godliness with correlation to happiness/success/whatever. I care about nothing else.

 

[ultramanhyata]

No, clearly I am not. I'm deconstructing the inconsistent internal logic of what appeared to be a classic neocon religious angle purporting to establish godliness with correlation to happiness/success/whatever. I care about nothing else.

I do not understand these statements. Are you ultimately agreeing with me that studies "linking" polygamy to poverty are flawed and fallacious? Yes or no.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Im sure he will provide proof right after people like you provide real proof that people are born gay.

What does one have to do with the other? What does being gay have to do with whether gays should have equal rights and protections? Under the CRA minority religions were recognized as a protected class, no one chooses to be Sikh.

As for the irrelevant question of whether there is a biological basis, that's been tread many many times here on sherdog. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Both genetic and prenatal environment explain well over 50% of variation in sexuality. For any behavior that's very high.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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

(I'm not talking about the legal terms here. I'm talking about common, cultural parlance. So the variation on "marriage" doesn't necessarily have to be "civil union".)

But we would make the distinctions for the same reason we, for example, call the place where Christians worship a "church", the place where Jews worship a "synagogue" and the place where Muslims worship a "mosque": Because different things should have different names for the purposes of simple clarity in communication. It's only certain people within the pro-gay movement who want to suddenly start equating qualifying terminology with concepts of superiority and inferiority.

And I'm happy to refer to a gay couple as "married" or refer to a male who has had sexual reassignment surgery as "she". But only for the simple reason that to do otherwise would be to hurt their feelings. Not because it has anything to do with known, objective reality.

 

[TheBox]

But we would make the distinctions for the same reason we, for example, call the place where Christians worship a "church", the place where Jews worship a "synagogue" and the place where Muslims worship a "mosque": Because different things should have different names for the purposes of simple clarity in communication.

We don't call a marriage between two white people one thing and a marriage between two black people something else. Or a marriage of two Christians versus a marriage of two atheists. Old old people versus young people. Or people marrying for love versus people in an arranged marriage. When interracial marriage was allowed, it didn't get a separate legal term.

It's only certain people within the pro-gay movement who want to suddenly start equating qualifying terminology with concepts of superiority and inferiority.

It's really obvious that the reason for the alternate term is to disparage same-sex unions as inferior.

I mean...they even SAY IT. How many anti-equality spokespeople talk about how allowing gay people to marry will "taint" marriage? They don't want "their" word to be associated with gay people.

 

[threelions]

(I'm not talking about the legal terms here. I'm talking about common, cultural parlance. So the variation on "marriage" doesn't necessarily have to be "civil union".)

But we would make the distinctions for the same reason we, for example, call the place where Christians worship a "church", the place where Jews worship a "synagogue" and the place where Muslims worship a "mosque": Because different things should have different names for the purposes of simple clarity in communication. It's only certain people within the pro-gay movement who want to suddenly start equating qualifying terminology with concepts of superiority and inferiority.

And I'm happy to refer to a gay couple as "married" or refer to a male who has had sexual reassignment surgery as "she". But only for the simple reason that to do otherwise would be to hurt their feelings. Not because it has anything to do with known, objective reality.

They aren't called different names for ease of communication. Most actually mean the same thing "place of Worship" or "Gathering" etc. They have different names simply because of the language they first appeared in. If those religions appeared today they would all have the same name.

 

[JaPo]

(I'm not talking about the legal terms here. I'm talking about common, cultural parlance. So the variation on "marriage" doesn't necessarily have to be "civil union".)

But we would make the distinctions for the same reason we, for example, call the place where Christians worship a "church", the place where Jews worship a "synagogue" and the place where Muslims worship a "mosque": Because different things should have different names for the purposes of simple clarity in communication. It's only certain people within the pro-gay movement who want to suddenly start equating qualifying terminology with concepts of superiority and inferiority.

And I'm happy to refer to a gay couple as "married" or refer to a male who has had sexual reassignment surgery as "she". But only for the simple reason that to do otherwise would be to hurt their feelings. Not because it has anything to do with known, objective reality.

You're disingenuous, but thankfully a lot smarter than the likes of o'dub and glennrod. Care to expound on your appeal to "known, objective reality"? What does that mean to you?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Care to expound on your appeal to "known, objective reality"? What does that mean to you?

 

[ultramanhyata]

We don't call a marriage between two white people one thing and a marriage between two black people something else. Or a marriage of two Christians versus a marriage of two atheists. Old old people versus young people. Or people marrying for love versus people in an arranged marriage. When interracial marriage was allowed, it didn't get a separate legal term.

You're contending that variations of a male/female gender pairing are equivalent to a dissolution of the pairing, itself. I guess that's pretty much the essence of the pro-gay marriage argument. I fundamentally disagree with the contention.

It's really obvious that the reason for the alternate term is to disparage same-sex unions as inferior.

I mean...they even SAY IT. How many anti-equality spokespeople talk about how allowing gay people to marry will "taint" marriage? They don't want "their" word to be associated with gay people.

The same people use the word "gay" as a signifier of what they believe to be moral inferiority. Does that make it true? Or them right? Why grant them that power? You may as well start waging a war to call all gay people "straights". That's the logical extension of this word-war lunacy.

 

[TheBox]

You're contending that variations of a male/female gender pairing are equivalent to a dissolution of the pairing, itself. I guess that's pretty much the essence of the pro-gay marriage argument. I fundamentally disagree with the contention.

Why?

What is the functional purpose between distinguishing gay and straight couples engaging in an identical legal contract?

I think the difference between [Bob signing a legal contract with Susan] and [Bob signing the same legal contract with Jim] is less significant than the difference between [Bob signing a legal contract with Susan] and [Bob buying Susan and forcibly making her his sex slave/baby factory], yet the latter two historically use the same term and the first two need to be distinguished?

The same people use the word "gay" as a signifier of what they believe to be moral inferiority. Does that make it true? Or them right? Why grant them that power?

Who is granting anyone power? Gay is an existing term that some people choose to use as a pejorative.

"Civil union" is a newly invented term made for the purpose of viewing a commitment made by gay couples as less than one made by straight couples.

You may as well start waging a war to call all gay people "straights". That's the logical extension of this word-war lunacy.

You can "logically extend" the argument in either direction: making hyper-specific terms for everything or flattening terms so everything is the same. We can find terminology on a meaningful middle ground that is supportive of effective communication and also doesn't pointlessly shit on people.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Box, let's get real. You feel, strongly and personally, that using a word other than "marriage" to describe the committed union of two gay people is an insult to gay people. I get that. But don't you see how that position, in and of itself, ends any possibility of open-minded dialogue?

I feel personally and strongly that there are word choices regarding ethnic groups that are always insulting. I once weighed in on a debate here in the WR about "Redskins" for example. No amount of "historical background" was ever going to change my opinion of what that word communicates, when used today, about Native Americans. It's a slur.

If that's how you feel about "civil union" when used in conjunction with committed gay relationships, any further discussion of the issue will be an exercise in futility on both our parts. Because one of us will be speaking objectively about the way people use language and vocabulary and one of us will be waging a struggle for civil rights.

 

[TheBox]

Box, let's get real. You feel, strongly and personally, that using a word other than "marriage" to describe the committed union of two gay people is an insult to gay people. I get that. But don't you see how that position, in and of itself, ends any possibility of open-minded dialogue?

The dialogue block is on your end. I've asked for reasons why a different term is necessary. I've been given none.

Because one of us will be speaking objectively about the way people use language and vocabulary and one of us will be waging a struggle for civil rights.

You aren't speaking any more objectively than I am.

If you think having separate terms for same-sex and opposite sex implementations of the same legal contract is a significantly positive move for the sake of communication, you'll need to tell me why breaking it down even further than that isn't also a positive move.

Should states be allowed to reinstate interracial marriage bans as long as they provide a similar institution called "Crossbreed Pacts"?

Sorry, we can't offer you a marriage license. We do have a Crossbreed Pact if you'd like. It's the same thing, but with a different name. Why a different name? LINGUISTICS, of course. Please pay no attention to the fact that we are also talking about how much we hate the idea of you being together and how you're ruining society. This is totally about linguistics.

 

[m52nickerson]

There is no reason in the law to call the marriage of two same sex individuals civil unions. It is a distinction without a difference.

 

[drowningidiot]

Box, let's get real. You feel, strongly and personally, that using a word other than "marriage" to describe the committed union of two gay people is an insult to gay people. I get that. But don't you see how that position, in and of itself, ends any possibility of open-minded dialogue?

I feel personally and strongly that there are word choices regarding ethnic groups that are always insulting. I once weighed in on a debate here in the WR about "Redskins" for example. No amount of "historical background" was ever going to change my opinion of what that word communicates, when used today, about Native Americans. It's a slur.

If that's how you feel about "civil union" when used in conjunction with committed gay relationships, any further discussion of the issue will be an exercise in futility on both our parts. Because one of us will be speaking objectively about the way people use language and vocabulary and one of us will be waging a struggle for civil rights.

Is there even a need for further discussion? All the ridiculous arguments the traditional marriage side has made have been destroyed. I think you said earlier on that they should be allowed to keep the brand. Why? I don't see any reason to cede them a single inch. They're losing badly and if they can't accept it and move on then tough shit. The hurt feelings of social conservatives shouldn't be much of a consideration at this point.

They can go on like they have been, have traditional marriages, and live their lives however they see fit so lets not pretend like they're suffering some grievous injury.