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

[TheComebackKid]

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.

Thats a home run actually. Marital licenses are issued to anyone who like to marry.

 

[TheComebackKid]

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

Or sports leagues, bathrooms, schools, clothing sections in a store, social clubs, ect, ect, ect....

 

[Madmick]

5 consecutive posts, TCK. Simmer down.

 

[MASShole]

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

Ah, not this shit again.

"Hey, they can be forced in one direction because others deemed it right."

 

[drowningidiot]

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

You could have said pretty much the exact same shit to interracial couples. They were free to marry just like everyone else, just not people outside of their race. Nobody was being discriminated against because the law was applied equally to all.

Of course this didn't do much for interracial couples but hey, society has the right or something

 

[ABACA]

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.

He's also convinced himself he hates ***s for the betterment of society.

 

[TheBox]

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

Then no one was being denied rights by anti-miscegenation laws.

Black people can enter into marriages with people of the same race just the same as white people.

Then no one would be denied right by a law banning all religious practice other than Catholicism.

Non-Catholics can practice Catholicism just the same as Catholics.

 

[TheBox]

The definition of marriage is not even based on sexual preference, its based on gender.

Marriage is a contract involving two people and it's overwhelmingly used by people in physical/romantic relationships.

It's pretty clearly set up in a way that excludes gay people.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Then no one was being denied rights by anti-miscegenation laws.

Black people can enter into marriages with people of the same race just the same as white people.

Apples and oranges

Then no one would be denied right by a law banning all religious practice other than Catholicism.

Non-Catholics can practice Catholicism just the same as Catholics.

No one is banning the practice of gay unions or gay lifestyles if they choose not to recognize them as marriages.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Marriage is a contract involving two people and it's overwhelmingly used by people in physical/romantic relationships.

It's pretty clearly set up in a way that excludes gay people.

Sure, if you insist on ignoring the definition of words

 

[TheBox]

Apples and oranges

It is the exact same thing. If you say "apples to oranges", you need to explain why.

No one is banning the practice of gay unions or gay lifestyles if they choose not to recognize them as marriages.

I didn't say they were. I was giving you examples of laws that "apply equally to everyone" but still treat some people better than others.

"No non-Catholicism" applies to both Catholics and non-Catholics, but the law sucks for non-Catholics.

"No same-sex marriages" applies to both gay and straight people, but the law sucks for gay people.

 

[TheBox]

Sure, if you insist on ignoring the definition of words

So why aren't gay people engaging in traditional marriages left and right?

 

[sickc0d3r]

1000 posts finally. What a fascinating look (once again) into the mind of a bigot.

 

[TheComebackKid]

It is the exact same thing. If you say "apples to oranges", you need to explain why.

The difference between interracial marriage and "regular" marriage is race and race only. We don't separate or distinguish on the basis of race(except for when we want to be completely hypocritical like AA) because we as a society has determined it to always be wrong.

The difference between SSM and traditional marriage is....gender. We often separate and distinguish on the basis of gender when appropriate.

Apples and oranges.

I didn't say they were. I was giving you examples of laws that "apply equally to everyone" but still treat some people better than others.

"No non-Catholicism" applies to both Catholics and non-Catholics, but the law sucks for non-Catholics.

"No same-sex marriages" applies to both gay and straight people, but the law sucks for gay people.

Your analogy only works if we make a law that says "no gayism". That is not happening and therefore your analogy doesn't work.

 

[TheComebackKid]

So why aren't gay people engaging in traditional marriages left and right?

Because they are not interested in traditional marriages. But they have every right to participate if they decide to.

 

[TheBox]

The difference between interracial marriage and "regular" marriage is race and race only. We don't separate or distinguish on the basis of race(except for when we want to be completely hypocritical like AA) because we as a society has determined it to always be wrong.

That's simply not true. At work, I'm currently on a project that is specifically aimed at Latinos. Race is a factor in politics, in certain public policies like affirmative action, and in scientific research (medicine in particular).

Our society has only come to that opinion *regarding marriage* in recent history. Loving V Virginia was in 1967.

The difference between SSM and traditional marriage is....gender. We often separate and distinguish between on the basis of gender when appropriate.

Can you tell me some major differences in legal institutions related to gender?

Your analogy only works if we make a law that says "no gayism". That is not happening and therefore your analogy doesn't work.

...I just explained the analogy to you and you still don't get it.

*A law can apply to 100% of people and still be unfair.*

 

[TheBox]

Because they are not interested in traditional marriages.

And why aren't they interested? Is it because it's set up in a manner that functions to exclude them?

You're like a guy holding a BBQ who knows a bunch of vegetarians are coming and intentionally doesn't make anything they can eat. "They can eat the meat just like everyone else." What a good host.

 

[kpt018]

The difference between interracial marriage and "regular" marriage is race and race only. We don't separate or distinguish on the basis of race(except for when we want to be completely hypocritical like AA) because we as a society has determined it to always be wrong.

The difference between SSM and traditional marriage is....gender. We often separate and distinguish on the basis of gender when appropriate.

Apples and oranges.

That's fucking idiotic. Saying that we often separate based on gender (locker rooms, sports, etc.) is not analogous to the opposition of SSM.

All men and all women can marry, so SSM opponents are not separating based on gender, they are separating based on who a gay person chooses to marry (or wants to marry).

A better analogy would be all whites can marry and all blacks can marry, but just not each other. Are you ok with that separation? I'm not.

 

[Madmick]

Someone start a version 2 if you want to continue.