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

[sickc0d3r]

how is it a jump?

theyre both consenting adults who cant breed healthy offspring?

what is the difference, both morally and legally

The biggest difference is, if you're a straight man and can't marry your sister, you still have half the population to work with. But, if you're a straight man and can't marry women, you're effectively banned from marriage.

 

[lowsingle]

The biggest difference is, if you're a straight man and can't marry your sister, you still have half the population to work with. But, if you're a straight man and can't marry women, you're effectively banned from marriage.

if youre a gay man, you can still marry women.

are you saying you shouldnt be allowed to marry who you love, as long as you have other options?

 

[sickc0d3r]

if youre a gay man, you can still marry women.

So, assuming you're straight and male, you feel you'd still be able to get married if you were only allowed to marry guys? I wouldn't, personally.

are you saying you shouldnt be allowed to marry who you love, as long as you have other options?

No. If you want to marry your sister and she's a consenting adult it's no skin off my sack. It's just a different issue from gay marriage, with some similar and some very different arguments.

 

[hoonosewot88]

The obvious difference is that an incestuous relationship is highly likely to produce an ill child, a gay relationship cannot.

But to save time and advance your argument to its logical conclusion, if you had a brother-sister combo who were sworn to not produce offspring or who were both sterile, should they be allowed to marry?

That's obviously an incredibly specific and fairly stupid hypothetical, but the logical answer is yes, they should. Despite our natural "yuck" reaction, at the end of the day people should be free to love and marry who they want, so long as both are consenting adults.

Of course though, in the case of incest it's far more likely to have come about as a result of some form of abuse or pressure. That combined with the child genetics issue and its overall rarity is why it'll probably never be up for debate.

 

[m52nickerson]

gays have equal rights already

there are no laws saying that gays cant do anything that straight people are allowed to do

Except marry the person they love. That is the whole point.

 

[TheBox]

gays have equal rights already

there are no laws saying that gays cant do anything that straight people are allowed to do

Equal application in a law doesn't mean people have equal rights.

I'll give you an example. New law: only people who attend a Catholic church every week can get married. This law applies equally to both Catholics and non-Catholics, but it's clear on it's face that it's discriminatory against non-Catholics.

 

[Anabolistair]

Equal application in a law doesn't mean people have equal rights.

I'll give you an example. New law: only people who attend a Catholic church every week can get married. This law applies equally to both Catholics and non-Catholics, but it's clear on it's face that it's discriminatory against non-Catholics.

then they should start their own churches and marry there... We can't impose our will on islam without being called racist and bigots yet the gays can impose themselves in others religions. WTF? I'm not religious or against gay mariage but they have no bisness imposing themselves in others cult.

 

[TheBox]

then they should start their own churches and marry there

What are you talking about? This issue has nothing to do with churches at all. They want equal treatment by the government.

We can't impose our will on islam without being called racist and bigots yet the gays can impose themselves in others religions.

...they're not imposing on anyone.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I've already established that the reason the alternative term was invented was to view those unions as less than marriages.

Oh, you've "established" it?

You begin from the absolute assertion that calling a gay partnership anything other than "marriage" places a gay partnership beneath a straight partnership. Then conclude that anyone who thinks we should use a word other than "marriage" to depict gay legal partnerships seeks to do so in order to demean the gay community.

It's pure, circular logic. And even this far into being made aware of it, you persist. As I said, I'm talking about a clear, precedent-based and efficient approach to concepts and vocabulary and you're waging a holy war. You are not emotionally balanced enough to have this discussion. You have far, far too much ideological skin in the game.

At the end of the day, regardless of the "official determination" (whatever the hell that means) some folks will opt to call a lifelong commitment of fidelity between two gay people a "marriage" and others will not. The difference between you and me is that I will hear people call a gay union a marriage and simply shrug. You will hear them call it something other than a marriage and gnash your teeth.

 

[TheBox]

Oh, you've "established" it?

Yes. Do you disagree that opponents of allowing gay people to "marry" have expressed strong desires to separate themselves from gay people, view their straight unions as superior to gay unions, and believe allowing gay people to use the term "marriage" results in a dilution or tainting of the institution?

You begin from the absolute assertion that calling a gay partnership anything other than "marriage" places a gay partnership beneath a straight partnership. Then conclude that anyone who thinks we should use a word other than "marriage" to depict gay legal partnerships seeks to do so in order to demean the gay community.

I didn't begin from that absolute assertion. My conclusion about the motivations behind using a separate term for gay partnerships is based on clear evidence.

As I said, I'm talking about a clear, precedent-based and efficient approach to concepts and vocabulary and you're waging a holy war.

As I said, you're not. You haven't provided precedent and have, despite numerous requests, not provided any reason why a separate legal term is needed.

You ignored the request again with this post.

You also ignored my query about what problem you had with my analogy and my explanation for why the "same-sex" qualifier can be useful in this debate without that justifying a distinct qualifier or term for the legal institution.

You are not emotionally balanced enough to have this discussion. You have far, far too much ideological skin in the game.

Here you go again with your "emotional" schtick. You have no actual arguments to offer.

I'm right. You're emotional.
I'm right. You're emotional.
I'm right. You're emotional.
I'm right. You're emotional.
I'm right. You're emotional.
I'm right. You're emotional.

You're boring.

 

[m52nickerson]

Oh, you've "established" it?

You begin from the absolute assertion that calling a gay partnership anything other than "marriage" places a gay partnership beneath a straight partnership. Then conclude that anyone who thinks we should use a word other than "marriage" to depict gay legal partnerships seeks to do so in order to demean the gay community.

It's pure, circular logic. And even this far into being made aware of it, you persist. As I said, I'm talking about a clear, precedent-based and efficient approach to concepts and vocabulary and you're waging a holy war. You are not emotionally balanced enough to have this discussion. You have far, far too much ideological skin in the game.

At the end of the day, regardless of the "official determination" (whatever the hell that means) some folks will opt to call a lifelong commitment of fidelity between two gay people a "marriage" and others will not. The difference between you and me is that I will hear people call a gay union a marriage and simply shrug. You will hear them call it something other than a marriage and gnash your teeth.

He does not begin with an assertion. Others have responded to you in this thread and explained why using a different term has no use unless it is to demean gay unions.

You have simply ignored that.

 

[ultramanhyata]

...because the qualifier is only used when needed. That is not always the case, most of the time you will not need to distinguish between same-sex and oposite sex marriages.

You're missing the point of the (fallacious) assertion: That distinguishing = denigrating. Because if that were true we would be guilty of denigrating the gay community every time we used the unambiguous qualifier "same-sex".

Everyone who operates in the real world knows that distinctions do not equate to judgments. Hell, we're right here in an MMA forum. There are some fans who prefer to watch fights that are heavy on grappling and some fans who prefer fights that are heavy on striking. Two different words. Two different camps. The words used to describe them do not, in themselves, bestow any functional superiority whatsoever.

You know why there weren't any battles over what "society" would call a new variation on skiing when it was devised? Because some people weren't locked in a social and political fever-dream over sliding down hills covered in frozen moisture. We just labeled the new thing "boarding". The distinction was clear to all involved, and we moved on with our lives.

 

[TheBox]

You're missing the point of the (fallacious) assertion: That distinguishing = denigrating.

No one is making the assertion that ALL cases of creating a term to distinguish things represents a form of denigration.

I am making the assertion that THIS case of creating a term to distinguish things is a form of denigration.

Can you provide a single shred of evidence that those people who want gay couples to only be able to get "civil unions" are doing so for linguistic reasons?

 

[m52nickerson]

You're missing the point of the (fallacious) assertion: That distinguishing = denigrating. Because if that were true we would be guilty of denigrating the gay community every time we used the unambiguous qualifier "same-sex".

Everyone who operates in the real world knows that distinctions do not equate to judgments. Hell, we're right here in an MMA forum. There are some fans who prefer to watch fights that are heavy on grappling and some fans who prefer fights that are heavy on striking. Two different words. Two different camps. The words used to describe them do not, in themselves, bestow any functional superiority whatsoever.

You know why there weren't any battles over what "society" would call a new variation on skiing when it was devised? Because some people weren't locked in a social and political fever-dream over sliding down hills covered in frozen moisture. We just labeled the new thing "boarding". The distinction was clear to all involved, and we moved on with our lives.

This goes rigth back to you asking why a qualifier is less offensive than a noun.

You're blind to your own emotional reactionism and lack of objectivity on this issue... Even though you can't restrain yourself from "going there" within a matter of one or two paragraphs.

Are you also offended by the qualifier "same-sex" when it proceeds the word "marriage" when it is necessary to distinguish between gay and straight unions? Why is a qualifier somehow less offensive than a noun?

Or let's consider the word "queer". Gay people have proudly adopted this word for their community. Yet there are plenty of straight people in this country who always use the word "queer" as a pejorative slur.

Does the idea of the same word communicating both something positive and something negative - all depending on the worldview of the person using it - make your head explode?

...because the qualifier is only used when needed. That is not always the case, most of the time you will not need to distinguish between same-sex and oposite sex marriages.

See we are using "same sex" in this discussion because it is needed; hell it is what the discussion is about. Most of the time you are not going to distinguish marriages between same sex couples and opposite sex couples. That is why you don't need a different term and why calling for one is seen as demeaning or discriminatory.

 

[ultramanhyata]

He does not begin with an assertion. Others have responded to you in this thread and explained why using a different term has no use unless it is to demean gay unions.

You have simply ignored that.

You both want to play "how many licks does it take to get to the center" on this issue in order to arrive at the conclusion your ideology demands.

There are as many differences and distinctions between a male/male or female/female relationship and a male/female one as there are between the individual genders themselves. I can begin reciting the list... and you will say that I have either failed to list enough distinctions or that the distinctions I have listed are somehow not sufficiently profound (according to your subjective reasoning) to warrant calling gay unions something other than marriage.

Will not waste my time. Will not play the game.

You remind me of the gun fetishists who simply refuse to admit that guns are specifically designed to kill things. Because to acknowledge that fact would hurt their arguments about regulation. So they simply choose to operate in another universe - where the laws of logic are suspended - whenever the issue is raised. That way they can keep shouting, "Hey, if we're a gonna' reg-i-late guns we should reg-i-late swimmin' pools too, I reckon! Huhyuck! Huhyuck!"

 

[ultramanhyata]

See we are using "same sex" in this discussion because it is needed; hell it is what the discussion is about. Most of the time you are not going to distinguish marriages between same sex couples and opposite sex couples. That is why you don't need a different term and why calling for one is seen as demeaning or discriminatory.

For this paragraph to make any sense whatsoever one has to start from the premise that a same-sex union and a mixed-sex union are exactly the same. Because, otherwise, why would using a "different term" for each be discriminatory?

Yet it is that very premise that is what we are debating.

You are locked in what appears to be the unbreakable death-grip of circular reasoning. I've pointed it out previously. And I can't think of any way to make it more clear to you.

I will give you this... If I shared your premise I would wholeheartedly embrace your conclusion.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Can you provide a single shred of evidence that those people who want gay couples to only be able to get "civil unions" are doing so for linguistic reasons?

I'm not speaking on behalf of "those people". Of course there are people operating with such motivations. I know what I mean in my own mind and heart when I use a word - or refrain from using a word. The internal attitudes or political agendas of others relative to such words does not impugn me.

And I find it weak that you seem to feel an aesthetic victory for gay people is the same as a substantive one. People who place gays below straights in their moral hierarchy are certainly not going to stop doing so just because we strike the phrase "civil unions" from the books.

The battle to gain two, committed gay people the same legal rights and benefits as married straights was substantive. But this entire "word war" can be filed in the cotton-candy feel-good drawer.

 

[TheBox]

And I find it weak that you seem to feel an aesthetic victory for gay people is the same as a substantive one.

Aesthetic victories can be substantive too.

Did you feel like "separate but equal" was a good policy?

 

[m52nickerson]

For this paragraph to make any sense whatsoever one has to start from the premise that a same-sex union and a mixed-sex union are exactly the same. Because, otherwise, why would using a "different term" for each be discriminatory?:

They are the same in every way that matters. Legally there will be no difference. The only difference will be the ratio of sex organs and how they have intercourse. Of course not all opposite sex couples have sex in the same ways. In the end the differences are inconsequential.

You are trying to inflate differences to promote a "seperate but equal" mentality.

 

[TheComebackKid]

He does not begin with an assertion. Others have responded to you in this thread and explained why using a different term has no use unless it is to demean gay unions.

You have simply ignored that.

A hetero union and a homo union are different physiologically, conceptually, and tangibly therefore provides a very common sense purpose to give them different terms....they are different things.