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

[TheComebackKid]

So same sex couples can't live harmoniously?

Didn't say this. I just articulated the concept of bringing the two genders together.

How are the differences in how man and women precess information valid when it comes to marriage?

Its valid when it comes to society because we all have to live together. The complimentary differences produce strong households, families, and thus societies.

 

[m52nickerson]

I am under no obligation to prove this or even think this. The fact is that traditional families have been shown to produce strong families and provide a societal model. We don't have to then disprove every other model to encourage this one.

When you want to restrict people's civil rights you damn sure do. Plus I would like to know what type of traditional families you are talking about? Just man and women? Is that your only qualifier?

 

[FIMN]

Not exactly because they still qualify the concept of bringing the two genders together in a harmonious way.

You can't see how inane your argument is? Replace the word genders with people. Is that marriage not worth as much as a straight one when it comes to a social arrangement that you seem to be wanting to protect? If not, why not? It's inclusiveness of the changes seem like the natural right of people to live how they wish to in a society where the government tries to improve the rights of its citizens - what grounds are there to be afraid?

 

[m52nickerson]

Didn't say this. I just articulated the concept of bringing the two genders together.

...

Its valid when it comes to society because we all have to live together. The complimentary differences produce strong households, families, and thus societies.

You keep saying this, but have no evidence. Please provide some.

 

[TheBox]

I am under no obligation to prove this or even think this. The fact is that traditional families have been shown to produce strong families and provide a societal model. We don't have to then disprove every other model to encourage this one.

If you're going to discriminate...yeah, you do need to support that hypothesis.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You keep saying this, but have no evidence. Please provide some.

Its self evident. Its like you asking me to prove that grass is green...well, just look at it...

 

[TheBox]

Its self evident. Its like you asking me to prove that grass is green...well, just look at it...

It's not self-evident. It's not even evident after significant study has been done on it.

And you know what? Even if it WAS self-evident, it STILL wouldn't be a good argument against SSM.

 

[m52nickerson]

Its self evident. Its like you asking me to prove that grass is green...well, just look at it...

It's not self-evident since traditional marriage has meant a great number of different things throughout history, both through the rise and fall of civilizations.

The modern idea of marriage, for love, is very new. Not long ago (still is some places) marriages were arranged. For much of history those resembled the meeting of slave and master more than any other coming together.

Then you have the fact that in recent times the divorce rate for traditional marriages is pretty high in the US and that most have both partners working. While those changes have gone on and we have seen same-sex marriges come into the picture crime has gone down. Something you would expect to go up if we were losing strong families.

But if it is so self-evident you should have no problem providing evidence. Just as you could post a picture of grass, proving it is green.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I think the point is more that since some heterosexual couples cannot reproduce or choose not to reproduce, coupled with the fact that ability to procreate is not a prerequisite nor a requirement of marriage, that the argument regarding the inability of homosexual couples to reproduce without intervention is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? Discussions of fundamental distinctions? Or irrelevant to equal, legal rights? I've already stated that I'm talking about the way we define things in normal parlance. Not about legalese. I'm not a lawyer and I don't give a shit about contractual language.

But if I'd been arguing that gays should be denied the same legal rights as straights based on their inability to procreate you would have really had me by the short hairs there. So nice job... I guess.

In this context, reproduction is not required in order to fulfill the legal requirements of marriage, so why should reproduction be held against homosexual couples?

Sigh... Because calling gay unions something other than "marriages" is holding reproduction against homosexuals. It's right back down the rabbit hole...

Hey, don't demean gin by refusing to call it vodka! They're both clear alcohols that are used in mixed drinks! And don't give me that "I'm not trying to demean gin, just distinguish it" bull crap! Because I see right through you!

This is like trying to reason with cultists. I'm done.

 

[m52nickerson]

Irrelevant to what? Discussions of fundamental distinctions? Or irrelevant to equal, legal rights? I've already stated that I'm talking about the way we define things in normal parlance. Not about legalese. I'm not a lawyer and I don't give a shit about contractual language.

But if I'd been arguing that gays should be denied the same legal rights as straights based on their inability to procreate you would have really had me by the short hairs there. So nice job... I guess.

...

Sigh... Because calling gay unions something other than "marriages" is holding reproduction against homosexuals. It's right back down the rabbit hole...

Hey, don't demean gin by refusing to call it vodka! They're both clear alcohols that are used in mixed drinks! And don't give me that "I'm not trying to demean gin, just distinguish it" bull crap! Because I see right through you!

This is like trying to reason with cultists. I'm done.

You really need to look up what distinction without difference means.

You examples are shit. It is going to matter if you use vodka or gin in a drink. Married couples getting tax breaks and the other legal right they are entitled to are not relient on the couple's sexs.

Should we call all blue cars one thing and all red cars something else? That is the level of distiction you are arguing for.

 

[OldGoat]

You really need to look up what distinction without difference means.

You examples are shit. It is going to matter if you use vodka or gin in a drink. Married couples getting tax breaks and the other legal right they are entitled to are not relient on the couple's sexs.

Should we call all blue cars one thing and all red cars something else? That is the level of distiction you are arguing for.

Society "decided" to encourage families to stick together and have children is why marriage between heterosexual has been the norm. What's the net benefit to society for homosexual marriage? What's wrong with keeping it on the DL?

 

[m52nickerson]

Society "decided" to encourage families to stick together and have children is why marriage between heterosexual has been the norm. What's the net benefit to society for homosexual marriage? What's wrong with keeping it on the DL?

Equal rights! Which is far more important than encouraging families to stick together and have kids. Nature does that pretty well.

 

[OldGoat]

Equal rights! Which is far more important than encouraging families to stick together and have kids. Nature does that pretty well.

Not all groups get all things or societal benefits/penalties. Having children is important for a group to propagate. It makes SENSE that a group will shape it's environment to make it more beneficially and to mitigate the negative aspects of procreation. This is why the successful religions encourage reproduction.

 

[m52nickerson]

Not all groups get all things or societal benefits/penalties. Having children is important for a group to propagate. It makes SENSE that a group will shape it's environment to make it more beneficially and to mitigate the negative aspects of procreation. This is why the successful religions encourage reproduction.

Well US law requires equal protection and equal treatment under the law. We also have a seperation of church and state.

Not to mention that fact that giving same-sex couples the right to marry does not take anything away from the traditional marriage.

 

[JaPo]

Its self evident. Its like you asking me to prove that grass is green...well, just look at it...

Holy shit. I would quite genuinely be ashamed if I was as fucking dense as you are, TCK. I am gobsmacked that you haven't developed the self awareness to realise how inane and dishonest your argumentation so consistently is. Just read your hilarious post on 'physiological and conceptual' differences again. It is fallacious to the core!

+ OldGoat: your reasoning relies on the assumption either that gays choose to be gay or that gays should go against their biological orientation and foster children just to benefit society. Both are patently absurd.

 

[OldGoat]

Well US law requires equal protection and equal treatment under the law. We also have a seperation of church and state.

Not to mention that fact that giving same-sex couples the right to marry does not take anything away from the traditional marriage.

No it doesn't. There is no universal equal protection or equal treatment. Society constantly decides what benefits and what penalties to apply to different subsets of people.

Can you legally drink at 20? No. But you can at 21? That's not equal treatment. Marriage is no different. Now opinions may change and laws may change but that doesn't mean gay people are legally entitled to be married.

What does separation of church and state have to do with any of this? You really think that there is 0 overlap between what is religiously moral and what is legal?

 

[OldGoat]

Holy shit. I would quite genuinely be ashamed if I was as fucking dense as you are, TCK. I am gobsmacked that you haven't developed the self awareness to realise how inane and dishonest your argumentation so consistently is. Just read your hilarious post on 'physiological and conceptual' differences again. It is fallacious to the core!

+ OldGoat: your reasoning relies on the assumption either that gays choose to be gay or that gays should go against their biological orientation and foster children just to benefit society. Both are patently absurd.

I don't think gays choose to be gay. I think it's predominantly genetic with some contribution for Hollywood making gay fabulous. Because, we all want to be fabulous.

But on the idea that a society that values the propagation of itself will do better than a society that does not value its own propagation is an absurd concept is itself an absurd concept.

 

[Calmete]

Because, we all want to be fabulous.

Didn't you mean to say, ffffaaaaaaaabbbuuuuullllloooouuuussssssss!












Work it girl.

 

[JaPo]

I don't think gays choose to be gay. I think it's predominantly genetic with some contribution for Hollywood making gay fabulous. Because, we all want to be fabulous.

But on the idea that a society that values the propagation of itself will do better than a society that does not value its own propagation is an absurd concept is itself an absurd concept.

You aren't so dishonest you've actually convinced yourself that's what I said, are you? Let's play your game. So what you're saying OldGoat is that, if you were gay, you'd be perfectly content with essentially being coerced into entering a relationship and having a child with someone you had no sexual attraction to? And that a statistically significant number of gay people became that way through 'homosexual propaganda' and other sorts of positive representations of gay people? This is your line of reasoning, albeit a good deal more legitimate and reasonable. Perfect example of partisan views getting in the way of your better judgement.

 

[OldGoat]

You aren't so dishonest you've actually convinced yourself that's what I said, are you? Let's play your game. So what you're saying OldGoat is that, if you were gay, you'd be perfectly content with essentially being coerced into entering a relationship and having a child with someone you had no sexual attraction to? And that a statistically significant number of gay people became that way through 'homosexual propaganda' and other sorts of positive representations of gay people? This is your line of reasoning, albeit a good deal more legitimate and reasonable. Perfect example of partisan views getting in the way of your better judgement.

I said nothing of the sort. I am just saying society has through the years encouraged heterosexual behaviors. It makes perfect sense. I don't care if gay people live their lives together. I don't see it as a huge necessary crusade to legalize their form of marriage. I also said "predominantly genetic". It's not all Marxist, liberal heathenistic brainwashing.