After Supporting Prop 8, New CEO Brendan Eich Comes Under Fire From Mozilla Employees

[SlowSpyder]

So can a single woman and a turkey baster. Doesn't mean she should be able to marry the turkey baster.

I would tell her she shouldn't. She should marry a living person who hopefully loves her and will take an active part in raising their family to the best of their ability. At least that would be my advice to her vs. marrying a turkey baster.

Japan and China do not recognize same-sex marriage yet both are not christian nations.

Other than homophobia, do they have any good reasons (edit - not that homophobia is a good reason)? Because so far on these forums no one has provided a good reason. Maybe the Chinese or Japanese have one that you could post? Are there any good reasons in America, or is it just religion?

 

[werepossum]

You are looking at things backward.

There is not an inherent right to a government recognized relationship. Such an idea is silly.

Look at traditional rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, religion, owning guns, not having soldiers quartered in your home. These are all things you have unless the government takes action to prevent you from having them.

Whereas marriage is something you only have if government takes action to give it to you. So it stands to reason that marriage should only exist if there is a compelling reason for it to exist.

Society has said for 100s of years that regulating male-female sexual relationships is something compelling due to the obvious outcome 😛

Such a compelling reason does not exist in same-sex relationships and so it is naturally outside of marriage.

Now if you want to argue that the original compelling reason for opposite-sex marriage no longer exists that is not an argument for same-sex marriage, but instead an argument against marriage existing.

I'm not arguing that gays should have the right to have their government recognize their relationships. I'm arguing that gays should have the right to have their government evaluate their relationships on the same basis as everyone else - age, degree of relation, mental competency - rather than saying a same-sex marriage is automatically a non-starter.

You mentioned the Second Amendment - this is analogous to government deciding it will not allow blacks to own weapons rather than honoring their Second Amendment rights under the exact same criteria as whites.

It is weird to me. I feel like when you peel the layers of the onion away, all your left with are people covering their ears and screaming "Marriage is between a man and a woman, damnit!" without a single decent argument of why. The tradition thing doesn't make sense. The requirement to add to the population was never a requirement that I've heard of (is it ok if someone who is unable to have children would marry?).

Yep. All (sane) arguments boil down to tradition, religion, or ick factor. Neither is a good reason for some people to have effectively less rights.

Go back to perhaps Elizabethan times and one could divorce a woman with prejudice if you could demonstrate that she was barren. Go back to medieval times and the lord could forcibly divorce a couple and assign one or both a new spouse. Both recognize that people directly form the strength of a nation, both economically and militarily, and that survival in one's dotage without being a burden on society required children. In modern times that is simply not the case, and the world's lone superpower (for who knows how much longer) is only third by population. Population still factors in heavily, but being overpopulated is just as bad as being underpopulated. And in any case, America has the singular ability to add as much population as we wish to add very quickly. People literally risk their lives and freedom to get here.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You are looking at things backward.

There is not an inherent right to a government recognized relationship. Such an idea is silly.

Look at traditional rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, religion, owning guns, not having soldiers quartered in your home. These are all things you have unless the government takes action to prevent you from having them.

Whereas marriage is something you only have if government takes action to give it to you. So it stands to reason that marriage should only exist if there is a compelling reason for it to exist.

Society has said for 100s of years that regulating male-female sexual relationships is something compelling due to the obvious outcome 😛

Such a compelling reason does not exist in same-sex relationships and so it is naturally outside of marriage.

Now if you want to argue that the original compelling reason for opposite-sex marriage no longer exists that is not an argument for same-sex marriage, but instead an argument against marriage existing.

Why do you have such a problem answering this question?

Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have or who do not wish to have children should be allowed to legally marry?

 

[werepossum]

Why do you have such a problem answering this question?

Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have or who do not wish to have children should be allowed to legally marry?

And before or after reporting for mandatory termination.

Conversely, is there some magic number of progeny which once produced, entitles one to the same marriage rights as the rest of us? If a woman has twelve children, becomes widowed, and decides to marry another widow with twelve children this time around, surely they both have fulfilled their procreation obligation and can safely switch to a diet of tacos with our blessing and congratulations on a difficult job well done.

 

[zinfamous]

You are looking at things backward.

There is not an inherent right to a government recognized relationship. Such an idea is silly.

Look at traditional rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, religion, owning guns, not having soldiers quartered in your home. These are all things you have unless the government takes action to prevent you from having them.

Whereas marriage is something you only have if government takes action to give it to you. So it stands to reason that marriage should only exist if there is a compelling reason for it to exist.

Society has said for 100s of years that regulating male-female sexual relationships is something compelling due to the obvious outcome 😛

Such a compelling reason does not exist in same-sex relationships and so it is naturally outside of marriage.

Now if you want to argue that the original compelling reason for opposite-sex marriage no longer exists that is not an argument for same-sex marriage, but instead an argument against marriage existing.

Full Disclosure: This^ guy is an advocate for toaster sex.

 

[werepossum]

Full Disclosure: This^ guy is an advocate for toaster sex.

Hey, toaster sex is hot. Dangerously hot. It can however lead to the great tragedy of our day, CFP (crispy flat penis.)

He has a point, I just think that point became obsolete long ago. With fertility treatment such as surrogates, adoption, and widespread divorce, gays are scarcely at much disadvantage in child procurement and rearing. And society's compelling interest in promoting procreation has faded, while society's compelling interest in promoting strong family bonds remains just as desirable if admittedly not nearly as necessary in absolute terms.

Lots of traditions are perfectly fine for their day, but become obsolete. Truth be told, hetero-only marriage probably became obsolete half a century ago when we decided that everyone should have the same rights rather than merely not be property. Took almost two hundred years to live up to our Declaration of Independence, and sadly we still have a few warts to polish off.

 

[MrPickins]

designed by evolution

Are you familiar with the old robot saying: "Does Not Compute"?

 

[MrPickins]

No they don't. You clearly do not understand biology at all.

Quoted for hilarity/stupidity.

 

[PingviN]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. A man and a woman are designed by evolution to come together as one. That is the way that the human species is supposed to function and that is the way it should be.

Now if you are a man and you are gay and you want to marry a man, well sorry you were born the wrong gender for that. There is no discrimination about it.

I am not telling you that you cannot be gay, a person still can do as they please, and they should not be punished for it. But a homosexual relationship is not something that should be celebrated and accepted as normal by society.

How about those that are infertile? They cannot reproduce, should they therefor be disqualified from marriage? How about those that just don't want kids?

Homosexual relationships are fine. Gay marriage is fine. There is literally no problem whatsoever.

Not allowing gays to marry wont make them straight. They're still not going to be a part of human reproduction.
Allowing gay marriage does not make straight people gay. It wont affect your marriage in any way.

Marriage is not just a symbolic thing, it brings with it legal and economical advantages. Refusing gays the right to marry is never based in anything but bigotry. There is no rational reason to not let gays marry. Period.

 

[rudder]

oooops is it too late for him to get his job back????

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/8/okcupid-outed-own-ceos-donation-anti-gay-marriage-/

 

[Victorian Gray]

And before or after reporting for mandatory termination.

Conversely, is there some magic number of progeny which once produced, entitles one to the same marriage rights as the rest of us? If a woman has twelve children, becomes widowed, and decides to marry another widow with twelve children this time around, surely they both have fulfilled their procreation obligation and can safely switch to a diet of tacos with our blessing and congratulations on a difficult job well done.

Far as I'm concerned anyone who is a consenting adult of 'sound mind' should be able to marry any other consenting adult or adults of 'sound mind'.

The above leaves out the issue of incest because I'm still trying to see how that might fit in relation to 'any consenting adult of sound mind'. The possible medical issues can be gotten around but issues of unequal power (i.e. between parent and offspring) are pretty darn tricky. <shrug>

 

[werepossum]

Far as I'm concerned anyone who is a consenting adult of 'sound mind' should be able to marry any other consenting adult or adults of 'sound mind'.

The above leaves out the issue of incest because I'm still trying to see how that might fit in relation to 'any consenting adult of sound mind'. The possible medical issues can be gotten around but issues of unequal power (i.e. between parent and offspring) are pretty darn tricky. <shrug>

Yep, same with polygamy where there is a history of oppression and coercion. Doesn't necessarily mean those things can't one day be legalized, but it does mean they need extra thought and scrutiny.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yep, same with polygamy where there is a history of oppression and coercion. Doesn't necessarily mean those things can't one day be legalized, but it does mean they need extra thought and scrutiny.

Oh yeah, there's a problem with religious polygamy as practiced by, for example, breakaway Mormons (google Bountiful British Columbia polygamy) but I don't believe that in the end society can't figure out how to make it work in a secular manner.

I've known people in 'informal' group relationships and for the most part they seem to have been able to work things out so that the arrangement worked for all concerned.

It's not the kind of relationship I'm interested in but I certainly have no issues with others following that path.

 

[jpeyton]

You'll have to take it easy on nehalem. He's trying to talk down a freight train, but in case after case, gay marriage is being validated in every courtroom on the road to the SCOTUS.

What will people like nehalem have left to argue about when the legality of gay marriage is no longer up for debate?

 

[Vaux]

You'll have to take it easy on nehalem. He's trying to talk down a freight train, but in case after case, gay marriage is being validated in every courtroom on the road to the SCOTUS.

What will people like nehalem have left to argue about when the legality of gay marriage is no longer up for debate?

Unfortunately you are right. However, just because some court says something because of growing public acceptance of gay marriage still does not make it right. Abortion is legal, how many millions of people are against that? It will always be a debateable subject. But I am getting tired of debating it, it seems to go around in circles.

 

[mikeymikec]

Meh. The cycle will continue. You can see on this thread where an opponent of gay marriage raises a point, it gets shot down in flames, then the point gets raised again a few pages later.

Many people here don't come to discuss a topic, they come to tell you what their point of view is, and it doesn't matter if you counter that point of view with evidence or logic. They'll raise it again in another thread as if this one never happened.

 

[Vaux]

Meh. The cycle will continue. You can see on this thread where an opponent of gay marriage raises a point, it gets shot down in flames, then the point gets raised again a few pages later.

Many people here don't come to discuss a topic, they come to tell you what their point of view is, and it doesn't matter if you counter that point of view with evidence or logic. They'll raise it again in another thread as if this one never happened.

Yeah lets pretend that the opponents of gay marriage never make any valid points. 🙄 The second paragraph I agree with, but that certainly happens on both sides.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yeah lets pretend that the opponents of gay marriage never make any valid points.

I can't remember seeing one on this thread.

"It's about reproduction!" - no, really, it isn't. Plenty of people have children without getting married first. Plenty of people get married and don't have any children before or after getting married. People don't get married because they want to have children, they get married because they love each other.

"Definitions can't be changed!" - they can, and do all the time, evolving with society's need for them.

"Society will be negatively affected by this!" - please provide a plausible explanation for how it would be. Oh wait, you can't.

"bu-bu-but biology!" - see reproduction counter and society counter.

"Gays are bullying other people to think the way they do!" and "being homosexual is a choice!" and "I've changed my mind, it's not a choice, it's a birth defect" - response 1 response 2 response 3

 

[rpsgc]

I'm confused...

Is it gay marriage or same-sex marriage? It seems the wording changes to suit the proponents. Kind of like global warming vs climate change.

How convenient...

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm confused...

Is it gay marriage or same-sex marriage?

Let me google that for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

"Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage)"

 

[Vaux]

I can't remember seeing one on this thread.

"It's about reproduction!" - no, really, it isn't. Plenty of people have children without getting married first. Plenty of people get married and don't have any children before or after getting married. People don't get married because they want to have children, they get married because they love each other.

"Definitions can't be changed!" - they can, and do all the time, evolving with society's need for them.

"Society will be negatively affected by this!" - please provide a plausible explanation for how it would be. Oh wait, you can't.

"bu-bu-but biology!" - see reproduction counter and society counter.

"Gays are bullying other people to think the way they do!" and "being homosexual is a choice!" and "I've changed my mind, it's not a choice, it's a birth defect" - response 1 response 2 response 3

I don't have time for a full response, but I just had to get this in here about homosexuality being harmless to society. That is false. By allowing gay marriage, you are promoting severe health risks.

Lets see: How about the big one, aids. The gay population counts for 61% all all aids cases in the US, and the way aids is mostly spread? By men having sex with men. Homosexuals are 50% more likely to suffer from depression, risk of suicide jumps to over 200%, homosexual lifespan is 24 years younger than heterosexuals, 20 times more likely to have anal cancer, homosexual parents increases the risk of incest by a parent by a factor of about 50, how about this.... 28% of homosexual men claim to have had over 1000 partners... need me to go on?

Yeah this certainly sounds like something we should be promoting by allowing gay marriage.

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't have time for a full response, but I just had to get this in here about homosexuality being harmless to society. That is false. By allowing gay marriage, you are promoting severe health risks.

Lets see: How about the big one, aids. The gay population counts for 61% all all aids cases in the US, and the way aids is mostly spread? By men having sex with men. Homosexuals are 50% more likely to suffer from depression, risk of suicide jumps to over 200%, homosexual lifespan is 24 years younger than heterosexuals, 20 times more likely to have anal cancer, homosexual parents increases the risk of incest by a parent by a factor of about 50, how about this.... 28% of homosexual men claim to have had over 1000 partners... need me to go on?

Yeah this certainly sounds like something we should be promoting by allowing gay marriage.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Some people are gay. There will always be some gay people. Legalising gay marriage does not encourage or discourage that.

Furthermore, people wanting to marry generally are promising to be monogamous; is this something you want to DISCOURAGE? Alternatively, if you think that marriage encourages sexual promiscuity, then perhaps you should be arguing to ban marriage entirely.

 

[PingviN]

I don't have time for a full response, but I just had to get this in here about homosexuality being harmless to society. That is false. By allowing gay marriage, you are promoting severe health risks.

No, you're confusing sex with marriage. You can have sex without the latter. No allowing gay marriage does nothing to deter that.

Lets see: How about the big one, aids. The gay population counts for 61% all all aids cases in the US, and the way aids is mostly spread? By men having sex with men. Homosexuals are 50% more likely to suffer from depression, risk of suicide jumps to over 200%, homosexual lifespan is 24 years younger than heterosexuals, 20 times more likely to have anal cancer, homosexual parents increases the risk of incest by a parent by a factor of about 50, how about this.... 28% of homosexual men claim to have had over 1000 partners... need me to go on?

Marrying someone usually means having less sex partners. That would be a good thing, right? You don't seem to understand what marriage is. Maybe depression and suicide is more common because the attitude displayed by you and your ignorant ilk?

Yeah this certainly sounds like something we should be promoting by allowing gay marriage.

Oh just fuck off. How dumb are you, really?

 

[Vaux]

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Some people are gay. There will always be some gay people. Legalising gay marriage does not encourage or discourage that.

Furthermore, people wanting to marry generally are promising to be monogamous. If you think that marriage encourages sexual promiscuity, then perhaps you should be arguing to ban marriage entirely.

Legalizing gay marriage puts a big stamp of approval on it by saying we support these types of relationships. They are recognized as normal, when there is nothing normal about it. In fact, it is unhealthy and abnormal.

 

[Vaux]

Oh just fuck off. How dumb are you, really?

Yeah and you have a good day, sir.