No you don't. How do you subsidize my morality? Even IF you're talking about marriage, you subsidize marriage because heterosexual married couples that have children actually provide a benefit to society whereas homosexual married couples are solely parasites. You pay for heterosexual married couples because without heterosexuals making babies you wouldn't exist. Homosexuals provide no such benefit. In fact, they want to get paid SOLELY because they have sex with someone with the same equipment.
Horse s***. Quit trying this garbage with me. Gay people have kids too, just not the way you want us to. But just for fun, if you're going to be fair, then you damn well better give me a tax break if you won't give me the same rights as you. Otherwise, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. And that's not gonna work. - - - Updated - - - If people are spending their money to harm us, yeah- we're going to say something. You would too.
No. Straight people have kids. Gay people pay straight people for their assistance with having kids. How about you try again. I tell you what, I'll give you guys a tax break and won't have to pay for subsidies for married couples, as long as homosexuals do not get to benefit from child reproduction. - - - Updated - - - You mean like making our children go into bathrooms and locker rooms with people of the opposite sex because those disgusting perverts want to have access to different bathrooms and locker rooms? Or maybe you mean like losing our jobs because the gay mafia doesn't allow people of the opposite position to express their views?
For one, my post was not directed at you, but harm? You perceive it as harmful, but it has done you no harm. You ask that others break with tradition and then spread hate when they do not bend to your will. What harm has prop 8 done to anyone? I do not mean hurt feelings I mean actual harm? It costs me more in taxes to be married you know. Single people with kids and unmarried gays with kids get plenty of tax credits and... For the record I did not vote for or against gays when it came to NC because I really do not give a (*)(*)(*)(*). People are people and we are all (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up in one way or another. Now when there is a push for protected status and AA for gays I will stand against it because that would mean everyone holds preference over heterosexual white males.
In my case, absolutely nothing. The problem I have is the belief that if I do not support their stance, I am a bad person because of it and accept it or else. My stance is against the rabid attitude of forcing people to accept that which they do not desire to accept. I have learn that the harder one tries to force acceptance of their opinion by others, the harder those others resist. My stance is against the rabid attitude that "if you are not with us, you are against us" and therefore are a hater. Made me Supreme Dictator for a day, and I will abolish the Government's involvement with marriage. I would rewrite the tax laws so that everyone is treated equally whether they are filed individually or married, filed jointly. As I mentioned before, Brendan Eich co-founded Mozilla and was instrumental in forming the corporations current policies towards gays....which are good policies as a whole. A faction of the gay community does not even seem to care about what he has done for them in the past, they only care that he dared donate a cause that was against their interest. They felt he therefore needed to be ruined because of it.
OK, let me just say this- if someone donated money to a cause to strip you of certain civil rights (and that is indeed what Prop 8 did, as same sex couples could marry before it was put in place), what would you do? Just sit back and do nothing? Bottom line, anyone who is against people being treated equally under the law is indeed not a very good person. I don't know how you see that any other way. And BTW, it was't just gay people who were against Eich's promotion. It was a hell of a lot more people than that. So please, if you want to have an honest discussion, keep that in mind. Eich also claimed to be one thing, while in actuality, he was the opposite. That doesn't do much for your credibility either. And also keep in mind that he has not said he's changed his POV.
Yeah. It wasn't just the gays calling for his termination. It was all of the (*)(*)(*)(*)libs in Silicon Valley.
I would fight the issue, not the person. I would not ruin someone because they held a different opinion. No matter how misguided I felt the person was, I would respect their right to their opinion and attempt to understand WHY they have that opinion. I would not condone violence by either side of the issue, but would search for possible compromises to create a solution....if one is possible. And who are you to judge a person's 'goodness'? Who are you to impose your own brand of hate? Just because another person may see reasons to not support an issues does not mean they are not sympathetic to the issue or empathetic towards the people involved. Yes, people like to protest.....even if they are protesting something they do not even understand.
Opinions are not the issue here, actions are. Please, I'm trying to have a discussion with you. But you're making it difficult when you won't acknowledge what this is truly about. This is not about opinions, it is about actions. "Impose my own brand of hate"? Seriously? How is standing up for equal treatment under the law "hate"? How is being severely critical of and not giving money to people who would strip others of rights "hate"? You've got a very strange definition of the word. They understand it just fine. They don't wish to support a company that says one thing, while it's CEO turns round and does the exact opposite. That's OK, and it should be.
It is a problem when the CEO of a company with a mission of openness is expressing bigotry that is harmful to its customer basis and its employe basis. The best explanation I've read is the one from The Guardian. If this doesn't make it for you. . .there is nothing more to say.
Could you post a link about a "gay mafia" in existence? And if you are referring to your fellow members as "a gay mafia," I believe you are breaking the rules of this forum by insulting your fellow members. I thought you were a proponent of free speech?
Of course opinions are the issue here. Mr. Eich had an opinion and exercised his RIGHT to express that opinion and people were butt-hurt about it. this should not be about opinions or actions, this should be about the ISSUE. People have a RIGHT to have opinions and act upon those opinions. I'm sorry that you feel that i am being difficult because I do not agree with you....that is life I guess. When you make it personal and attack someone it is hate.....you hate them for expressing their opinion in the form of some action and want some form of revenge.....in this case, Eich to resign. If you would focus on the issue and fight the issue and not the person, you would get much further. Fighting issues is not hate....fighting individuals is. I have no problem if Mozilla pressured him into resigning because they felt his philosophy did not coincide with the corporation's philosophy. However, this issue was out in the open prior to Eich being promoted to CEO. Therefore, this is not about philosophy, this is about public pressure in an attempt to extract a pound of flesh.
And that puff piece by the Guardian is a prime example of the lack of insight that society if plagued by. This is about the ISSUE....not the individual. If the argument on the issue was strong, no amount of money would change the outcome. Ruining Eich over his opinions is a form of bigotry in itself. Fight the issues....not the individuals. Eliminating individuals that have a difference of opinion does not make one's stance on those issues stronger or more valid.
Well, you're going to have a difficult time on this forum if you refuse to accept reality and debate from that standpoint. The facts are this: Eich DONATED to Prop 8. Donating is not an opinion, it is an action. That is working directly to harm the rights of others, including people who work at Mozilla. You cannot agree or disagree with reality, no matter how hard you try. What he DID was an action, not an opinion. Eich made it personal when he formed a company that claims to be one thing, while he did the opposite. You don't go out, woo a group of customers, then go work against them and expect them to stick around. What is so hard to understand here? I cannot purport to know what Mozilla was thinking when they promoted him. Neither can you. And the pressure they felt was from the people they do business with- bottom line. Should Mozilla have kept Eich and lost customers and clients? Tell me.
One more time, if you cannot understand that this is about actions (not opinions) and direct conflict with Mozilla's supposed philosophy, I don't know what more to tell you. There is nothing more to discuss. This is key in that article: If you can't grasp this, then our discussion is over. Should Mozilla have kept Eich and lost more employees, customers and clients?
your definition of "rights" is subjective... which is the issue. but your viewpoint can be answered with one situation.... I can get behind you supporting CEO being forced to resign, if you can support, say, a future CEO of Chic-fil-a, (for hypothetical example), being forced to resign from CFA because they found out prior, he donated to a PRO-GAY group. (which works against the founders values) If you support the CEO being forced out for his private beliefs.... then you have to support it when it doesn't fit your agenda or values Personally, if Mozilla wants to force him out for donating to Prop 8... that's their prerogative.... even though I agree with his values. I just don't think you would be as supportive of a company hypothetically, forcing a gay supporting CEO out for his beliefs, even though, I again, say that's the company prerogative.... - - - Updated - - - would you support CFA forcing an exec to resign who SUPPORTED gay marriage privately to avoid losing employees, customers and clients?
Well, I have been on this forum for much longer than you have and I really have not had that much difficulties. And you can not seem to understand that actions are nothing more than expressing one's opinions. I have said it over and over, that the issue is paramount, not the actions of other people. Sure, their actions may help support or fight an issue, but they do not DEFINE the issue. The issue is already defined. If people feel the need to boycott a corporation, that is their right. However, imo, it is a stupid action that does not address the issue itself. There are many corporations (if fact, probably all of them) that do things or support things that I do not agree with. If I boycott all of them, I would be denying myself more than I would the corporation. For instance, Kraft at one time supported gun control, which I oppose. I like Kraft's Mac & Cheese. Do I boycott them and deny myself the enjoyment of Mac & Cheese? (yes, I know it is not good for me) Will my boycott change their stance? Maybe, if I had support from many others. However, that does not change the issue. The issue still exists. Do I boycott everybody that supports Kraft? Nope, still doesn't change the issue. As I said, eliminating opposition does not make one's stance on the issue stronger or more valid. It only shows the pettiness of human nature.
Why isn't the CEO of OKcupid being harassed by the mafia thugs since he TOO donated to anti-gay marriage causes.
Btw, you can choose to discuss this issue or not....that is your right. I really do not care. If fact, if you did refuse to continue discussion, I might actually be able to get some work done. However, not discussing things does not change the issue itself.
How melodramatic! "RUINING Eich?" You must be kidding! I'm sure he can continue to make his millions in a company whose mission statement meets his bigoted views. . .or that he can learn to move towards a more accepting and reasonable stand re: gay rights. It's just so funny that you insist in picturing this guy as "the victim," when Gay people have been victimized for centuries! Duh!
