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

[TheComebackKid]

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.

Yes crime has gone down along with education and the economy. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

I believe it is self evident but either way its not something that has to be proven. If enough people come to the conclusion that traditional marriage leads to strong families and strong societies then they have every right to encourage that through things like tax benefits and state recognition then I don't see a problem with that.

It similar to tax cuts and tax increases. No one can objectively prove one is better than the other. The best they can do is provide arguments and sway enough people to one side or the other.

 

[JaPo]

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.

A whole lot of sweet fuck all, then.

 

[TheComebackKid]

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

Look at it like this. We encourage people to go to school and receive an education by offering loans and grants. We believe educated people build a strong society. We don't offer those same encouragements to those who go to the arcade frequently. Why? Not because they are less equal human beings but the arcade does not produce the thing we are trying to encourage.

And then imagine someone claiming you have to prove that being at the arcade frequently leads to a weaker society in order to offer educational loans and grants for those who go to school.

 

[TheComebackKid]

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!

So what you're saying is that you disagree? Thats alright, we can agree to disagree.

 

[JaPo]

So what you're saying is that you disagree? Thats alright, we can agree to disagree.

No, I'm saying it's all dishonest bullshit that's not articulated well enough to even deserve disagreement. And to your above post: people do not choose to be gay. Those people who were perhaps born straight but were seduced by the ever so alluring appeals of the gay lifestyle constitute such a small portion of the overall gay population to be deemed absolutely irrelevant to any discussion. If you think they are relevant, you either haven't read enough, had experience in enough walks of life or are just using them in a laughable attempt to legitimise your shitty irrational argument.

 

[OldGoat]

A whole lot of sweet fuck all, then.

What's that mean? In English, please.

 

[m52nickerson]

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?

Things like the drinking age are legal because they apply to each person in the same way. A ban on same sex marriage does not. Right now gay people can marry, that is not prohibited. What is prohibited is the marriage of two people of the same sex, that is sexual discrimination which the Supreme Court has ruled many time is unconstitutional.

The separation of church and state means that any arguments for not allowing same sex marriage based on religion are not valid.

 

[m52nickerson]

I believe it is self evident but either way its not something that has to be proven. If enough people come to the conclusion that traditional marriage leads to strong families and strong societies then they have every right to encourage that through things like tax benefits and state recognition then I don't see a problem with that.

It does have to be proven if you are going to deign rights to certain people. Than you have to show that giving those rights will hurt hurt traditional marriage. You can't do either.

 

[m52nickerson]

Look at it like this. We encourage people to go to school and receive an education by offering loans and grants. We believe educated people build a strong society. We don't offer those same encouragements to those who go to the arcade frequently. Why? Not because they are less equal human beings but the arcade does not produce the thing we are trying to encourage.

And then imagine someone claiming you have to prove that being at the arcade frequently leads to a weaker society in order to offer educational loans and grants for those who go to school.

Swing and a miss, student loans are offered to anyone who wishes to go to school. Unlike marriage when it come to same sex couples.

 

[OldGoat]

Things like the drinking age are legal because they apply to each person in the same way. A ban on same sex marriage does not. Right now gay people can marry, that is not prohibited. What is prohibited is the marriage of two people of the same sex, that is sexual discrimination which the Supreme Court has ruled many time is unconstitutional.

The separation of church and state means that any arguments for not allowing same sex marriage based on religion are not valid.

Not all forms of sexual discrimination are illegal. And many laws and the arguments for them are derived from religion.

 

[m52nickerson]

Not all forms of sexual discrimination are illegal. And many laws and the arguments for them are derived from religion.

For any type of sexual discrimination to be legal the government must demonstrate that its use of sex-based criteria is substantially related to the achievement of important governmental objectives.

Law that are based on religious beliefs must pass the lemon test and have secular value.

 

[OldGoat]

For any type of sexual discrimination to be legal the government must demonstrate that its use of sex-based criteria is substantially related to the achievement of important governmental objectives.

Law that are based on religious beliefs must pass the lemon test and have secular value.

Like a ladies night at the club? Or discriminatory pricing at the dry cleaners?

 

[m52nickerson]

Like a ladies night at the club? Or discriminatory pricing at the dry cleaners?

In some places Ladies Nights have been found illegal. However night club pricing or dry cleaner pricing are not laws, so they don't fall under the 14 amendment of due process clause.

 

[OldGoat]

In some places Ladies Nights have been found illegal. However night club pricing or dry cleaner pricing are not laws, so they don't fall under the 14 amendment of due process clause.

So I could legally charge men women gays straights whites and blacks all differing amounts at the night club?

 

[m52nickerson]

So I could legally charge men women gays straights whites and blacks all differing amounts at the night club?

Most likely not, but those issues would fall under different laws. Which is why I said Ladies Night have been struck down is some places.

Have you never taken any type of civics class?

 

[OldGoat]

Most likely not, but those issues would fall under different laws. Which is why I said Ladies Night have been struck down is some places.

Have you never taken any type of civics class?

The question is can you legally discriminate or not? Not oldgoat's CV.

 

[m52nickerson]

The question is can you legally discriminate or not? Not oldgoat's CV.

I answered the question and explained how it would most likely be prohibited under different laws than we are talking when talking about same sex marriage.

 

[TheComebackKid]

No, I'm saying it's all dishonest bullshit that's not articulated well enough to even deserve disagreement.

Yet you respond to me in everyone of these threads...

And to your above post: people do not choose to be gay. Those people who were perhaps born straight but were seduced by the ever so alluring appeals of the gay lifestyle constitute such a small portion of the overall gay population to be deemed absolutely irrelevant to any discussion. If you think they are relevant, you either haven't read enough, had experience in enough walks of life or are just using them in a laughable attempt to legitimise your shitty irrational argument.

The above post said nothing about whether or not people choose to be gay. I don't believe they do. I believe some experiment and end up liking it but the vast majority are born with an innate preference for the same sex. You were saying?

 

[TheComebackKid]

It does have to be proven if you are going to deign rights to certain people. Than you have to show that giving those rights will hurt hurt traditional marriage. You can't do either.

No one is being denied rights tho. Gay people can enter into traditional marriages just the same as straight people.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Things like the drinking age are legal because they apply to each person in the same way. A ban on same sex marriage does not. Right now gay people can marry, that is not prohibited. What is prohibited is the marriage of two people of the same sex, that is sexual discrimination which the Supreme Court has ruled many time is unconstitutional.

The separation of church and state means that any arguments for not allowing same sex marriage based on religion are not valid.

The SC may have determined that that is sexual discrimination but it just depends who is on the court. The definition of marriage is not even based on sexual preference, its based on gender. Gay people can also traditionally marry just like hetero people. And hetero people can't gay marry just like gay people.

So if you want to argue anything argue gender discrimination. But then you have to grapple with the fact that we separate and distinguish things based on gender all the time and its perfectly acceptable to do so when appropriate.