# The meaness of political correctness



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...erance-some-think-thats-intolerant/?tid=hp_mm

This man was driven out of his job because he made a $1000 donation to the California campaign against gay marriage legalization in 2008. That is the sum of his "crime." There is no other allegation of misconduct.

I think there must be something deep in the psyche of this issue. People seem to find the very idea of a gay person making demands offensive and at the same time there seems to be a feeling of utter meanness in the actions of gay right proponents. Hate seems to be the common characteristic on both sides.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

where I want to said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...erance-some-think-thats-intolerant/?tid=hp_mm
> 
> This man was driven out of his job because he made a $1000 donation to the California campaign against gay marriage legalization in 2008. That is the sum of his "crime." There is no other allegation of misconduct.
> 
> I think there must be something deep in the psyche of this issue. People seem to find the very idea of a gay person making demands offensive and at the same time there seems to be a feeling of utter meanness in the actions of gay right proponents. Hate seems to be the common characteristic on both sides.


I've said all along that those promoting gay marriage do not just want the right to marry and then be left alone. They will not be happy until everyone "supports" them, even if they really don't but are just too afraid to say so. There is some powerful intimidation going on. 

I don't think, though, that those who believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman are practicing "hate". 

True tolerance means treating someone with respect even though you disagree with them. Bullying them and making sure they can never hold a job is not it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

When did practicing free speech start coming with negative consequences. Surely not in the 2000's when the Dixie Chicks were pulled from radio playlists. Not the 60's when the Smothers Brothers were driven off network TV. Not the 50's when we had government hearings and blacklists to combat the red scare. Political correctness and its consequences have always existed. It's just slightly more disturbing when it's used against you.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I knew someone would come up with an excuse


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

People get fired or not hired because of their beliefs ALL THE TIME, and for any variety of reasons. Picking one instance and claiming it is "special" is disingenuous. The workplace is filled with landmines like this. Mention something about your religion to a boss with a different religion and you may find the welcome mat removed. Don't play as part of a "team" and there is the door. Many folks find comfort in a cult of belief and intentionally shut out anything that might disturb that mindset. Sometimes we call it bigotry, or stereotyping, or other names.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

It seems that those who screech the loudest, demanding tolerance are the least likely to practice tolerance themselves.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Being democrat or Republican can get you fired. Supporting gay rights can get you fired. Why is the opposite any different.

I don't like it, I don't agree with it but as so many here like to say, if you don't like it get another job.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This In Your Face that gays seem to the 'in' thing is what is causing the problems. Do your Thing and Let it Be. Don't get 'into the face' of those that do no believe in such stuff. But that is not what the gays want, they want Look At Me I am Gay and You Are Not. We want to be treated 'special'. Baloney on that special bit.
Just let others alone~!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> I knew someone would come up with an excuse


Not an excuse, just the reality of the human condition. I know none of you hate gays..... as long as they don't flaunt it by doing things like holding hands in public.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> When did practicing free speech start coming with negative consequences. Surely not in the 2000's when the Dixie Chicks were pulled from radio playlists. Not the 60's when the Smothers Brothers were driven off network TV. Not the 50's when we had government hearings and blacklists to combat the red scare. Political correctness and its consequences have always existed. It's just slightly more disturbing when it's used against you.


And any of those make this right?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I miss the days of being able to watch Archie and George bicker back and forth on All In the Family.. 

I laughed at Nick Cannon doing "white face" makeup... 

Only those that aren't comfortable with their selves can't laugh at the differences between us..


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The employees of this company exercised their personal freedom to speak up about what they believed to be wrong with promoting this man to this position.

It was their personal freedom to do so, was it not?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The employees didn't come to the company leadership or HR with their concerns, they started a smear campaign on Twitter, the article said. If I was in charge, THOSE are the ones who would get fired for airing the company's laundry on the public airwaves like that. I'm sure they signed a confidentiality agreement when they were hired. 

On the other hand, if they had gone to HR or called a special meeting to tell the company leadership they were uncomfortable with this guy and couldn't perform at their best working under him, then they might have a leg to stand on. But to take to Twitter like a pack of high school bullies, I have no respect for that and very surprised the company took action to fire him instead of the immature tweeters.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Not an excuse, just the reality of the human condition. I know none of you hate gays..... as long as they don't flaunt it by doing things like holding hands in public.


It's much more than holding hands these days
If you want to wear women's underwear, I don't care, just don't wear it in a parade.
I still haven't figured out why that's acceptable but an American flag or a Nativity is offensive.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> The employees didn't come to the company leadership or HR with their concerns, they started a smear campaign on Twitter, the article said. If I was in charge, THOSE are the ones who would get fired for airing the company's laundry on the public airwaves like that. I'm sure they signed a confidentiality agreement when they were hired.
> 
> On the other hand, if they had gone to HR or called a special meeting to tell the company leadership they were uncomfortable with this guy and couldn't perform at their best working under him, then they might have a leg to stand on. But to take to Twitter like a pack of high school bullies, I have no respect for that and very surprised the company took action to fire him instead of the immature tweeters.


I hate to sound repetitious, but that's the new left.
They want to destroy those who don't agree with them, they will smear, slander, lie and exaggerate, and the stupid people pick it up and keep it going.
It's how they ran their presidential campaign, it's how they now deal with everything that gets under their thin skin.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

You can have any views you want as long as they are the ones that I approve of.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> If you want to wear women's underwear, I don't care, just don't wear it in a parade.


Ever been to a Mardi Gras parade? Lol


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> And any of those make this right?


The only one that really disturbs me is the "commie hunt" of the fifties where the force of the government was used to ruin lives and careers. If one is going to hold and express strong beliefs they should be willing to take the criticism of those who disagree along with the praise of those who agree.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> The only one that really disturbs me is the "commie hunt" of the fifties where the force of the government was used to ruin lives and careers. If one is going to hold and express strong beliefs they should be willing to take the criticism of those who disagree along with the praise of those who agree.


As far as I can tell, he did not express an opinion anywhere much less anywhere inappropriate. And losing your job for a contribution is more "like ruin lives and careers." Not just criticism.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

I had a very good friend of mine who is gay I say 'had' because we are no longer on speaking terms. I have the temerity to believe that a business owner should be free to do business with whomever he wants, and NOT do business with whomever he wants.

That recent case where the gay couple wanted a cake baked by a baker who did not want to do it due to his beliefs sparked the conversation. I kept insisting that I wouldn't refuse to do business with a gay person, but if someone else did then I believe they have that right. To me it's a private property issue, not a gay issue. I am obviously not a homophobe since the guy was best man at my wedding!

In my opinion, gay rights proponents don't care what rights they throw under the bus, nothing is more important than their agenda and they are not rational or reasonable. I don't see why you would want somebody who doesn't like you to bake you a cake, or serve you food, or perform any function for you. The whole agenda is about forcing acceptance not just being allowed to live their lives.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> This In Your Face that gays seem to the 'in' thing is what is causing the problems. Do your Thing and Let it Be. Don't get 'into the face' of those that do no believe in such stuff. But that is not what the gays want, they want Look At Me I am Gay and You Are Not. We want to be treated 'special'. Baloney on that special bit.
> Just let others alone~!


None of the gay people I know feel or act this way. They are normal, quiet people who just want to have a good life. Like the rest of us.

You seem to be basing your opinion of an entire group of people on the most outspoken fringe element. If you read the article, a gay writer came out against the actions of the employees attacking Mr. Eich on Twitter. Why don't you choose that person as representative of "what gays want" or "what gays are like"? It doesn't mean you have to like of approve of the In Your Face crowd. It doesn't have to be black or white. The opinion is yours to change. 

Mozilla probably lost some good business talent. It's a shame neither side saw the opportunity to work towards understanding.

ETA: I'm not trying to single out _you_ specifically...more anyone that has this opinion. Just using your post as a jumping off point.



How in the world to people have the energy to keep hating each other?


----------



## Farmer Willy (Aug 7, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> The only one that really disturbs me is the "commie hunt" of the fifties where the force of the government was used to ruin lives and careers. If one is going to hold and express strong beliefs they should be willing to take the criticism of those who disagree along with the praise of those who agree.


I don't see a problem if it was taking down American hating Godless commies, other than it being 100 years too late. If they'd a nipped it in the bud we could have avoided the stalins, lennins, maos and pol pots. World be better of with fewer ellen degenerates or eltin johns and a lot more Phil Robertsons keeping the country right. 

As for the government out to ruin lives and careers, go talk to that eric holder or barack osoma turning the irs loose on regular straight folks. Now they got the teachers all pushing out that commie core edjucation to try and recruit more of them.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

There's not really a lot of information there in that article but going by what's there I think the entire situation is ridiculous and everybody concerned was immature and needs a darned good spanking.

What I'm curious about is how did the other employees know that he had made a donation and why did they wait 6 years to snivel on twitter about that and about him getting a promotion? 

There's no mention there of how they knew about a donation or why they waited so long so I suspect there's a lot more to the story than it just being about intolerance. I think there's some sensationalism going on with this story and that it's only half the story. I shouldn't think a high ranking employee would resign from a job like that just because other people disapproved of him getting a job promotion and making a donation to a personal cause.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> As far as I can tell, he did not express an opinion anywhere much less anywhere inappropriate. And losing your job for a contribution is more "like ruin lives and careers." Not just criticism.


Since the Supreme Court has deemed that money is speech he certainly did express an opinion with his contribution. And while you pulled part of my quote I'm sure you understand the difference between government action and that of private citizens expressing their own opinions.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Meh. If Mozilla wants to fire one if its founders because of his personal beliefs, that's their perogative. Stupid, outrageous and wrong, but their perogative. And their customers have the right to use or not use Firefox, etc, based on that decision.

Just like that whole Duck Dynasty thing. The 'customers' spoke on that issue, and it was solved, accordingly.

It does leave a bad taste in my mouth, though, when ANYONE loses their job because of personal political opinions. And, I wonder, if I would still agree with Mozilla if I didn't know this guy was going to be ok and wasn't going to lose his house, etc, over his political opinion...you know, if he wasn't some rich guy and just some average schmoe like us? Would a $1000 contribution by a middle class joe warrant his losing his job, house, etc? I guess I would feel worse about it, then, but, then again, is there a difference?

I think we all need to calm down and take a breath. I am so tired of all this outrage on both sides of the political spectrum. 

I'm rambling. Sorry.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Paumon said:


> There's not really a lot of information there in that article but going by what's there I think the entire situation is ridiculous and everybody concerned was immature and needs a darned good spanking.
> 
> What I'm curious about is how did the other employees know that he had made a donation and why did they wait 6 years to snivel on twitter about that and about him getting a promotion?
> 
> There's no mention there of how they knew about a donation or why they waited so long so I suspect there's a lot more to the story than it just being about intolerance. I think there's some sensationalism going on with this story and that it's only half the story. I shouldn't think a high ranking employee would resign from a job like that just because other people disapproved of him getting a job promotion and making a donation to a personal cause.


One highly relevant piece of info that was in the article, it said this guy was a CO-FOUNDER of the company. So the twitter attack mob pretty much owed their jobs to this guy and ousted him anyway. Nice crowd.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

I wonder if everyone would be as outraged if he had donated $1000 to a bill that made inter racial marriage against the law?

There is a fantastic amount of bigotry on this forum, I get it though. Many homesteaders are really religious, and the idea of two people of the same sex getting it on is this big horrible thing to you. Well try and remember not everyone thinks like you. That donating $1000 to ban gay marriage is just as bad as donating $1000 to allow slavery....


> In fact, some people who led the movement to boycott Mozilla say their goal was never to force Mr. Eich out or get him to change his beliefs; it was simply to get him to apologize for the discrimination they faced under Proposition 8. That would have been a much better resolution than his resignation.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

fishinshawn said:


> I wonder if everyone would be as outraged if he had donated $1000 to a bill that made inter racial marriage against the law?
> 
> There is a fantastic amount of bigotry on this forum, I get it though. Many homesteaders are really religious, and the idea of two people of the same sex getting it on is this big horrible thing to you. Well try and remember not everyone thinks like you. That donating $1000 to ban gay marriage is just as bad as donating $1000 to allow slavery....


 
There is nothing in the Bible about inter racial marriage. There is, certainly, about same sex relations. That is a horrible, horrible red herring to throw at Christians.

I totally support gays' right to marry. What I do not support is folks violating others' rights in the process.

It's not 'bigotry', my friend. It is deeply held beliefs guaranteed by the constitution, just as gays have the right to marry under the constitution. That is the issue. And it is a big issue, two constitutional rights so opposed to one another. It is not as simple as calling some folks 'bigots'.

And, btw, HOW DARE you equate the gay marriage issue with slavery.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

I am always NOT surprised that I see the title of a Thread- and I can guess in my own mind who will post with vague responses that add nothing to the conversation- just their normal insane rhetoric.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

FeralFemale said:


> Meh. If Mozilla wants to fire one if its founders because of his personal beliefs, that's their perogative. Stupid, outrageous and wrong, but their perogative.


He wasn't fired, he resigned.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

FeralFemale said:


> There is nothing in the Bible about inter racial marriage. There is, certainly, about same sex relations. That is a horrible, horrible red herring to throw at Christians.
> 
> I totally support gays' right to marry. What I do not support is folks violating others' rights in the process.
> 
> ...


I'm not christian, anymore, I don't care what they think. They have no right to push their beliefs of marriage or god or anything else on anyone. 

Bigotry is bigotry, whether you are talking about gay marriage or inter racial marriage, or slavery. It is all one in the same. 

What rights to process were violated? Last I read this guy QUIT. If he isn't proud or can't handle people disliking him for his view points maybe he should be less public about them.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Paumon said:


> He wasn't fired, he resigned.


No one at the level gets 'fired'. It is to detrimental to the company's stock price. The are 'asked' to resign (i.e. told that if you don't resign then we will fire you and also destroy your reputation so much that it will make sure that you will never be hired by another corporation again)


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

FeralFemale said:


> No one at the level gets 'fired'. It is to detrimental to the company's stock price. The are 'asked' to resign (i.e. told that if you don't resign then we will fire you and also destroy your reputation so much that it will make sure that you will never be hired by another corporation again)


Thats assuming facts not in evidence. There are 3 facts that I see:

1. He made a donation 

2. People didn't like the same cause he did

3. He quit his job amid the outrage of a vocal group of people.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

FeralFemale said:


> There is nothing in the Bible about inter racial marriage. There is, certainly, about same sex relations. That is a horrible, horrible red herring to throw at Christians.
> 
> I totally support gays' right to marry. What I do not support is folks violating others' rights in the process.
> 
> ...


 Yes it isn't even close to being the same. This has gone far enough let businesses do what they believe in dong. This is a free country. OR WAS a free country that is, until the left started all this PC correctness junk, and the gays wanted to stick there ways in the faces of Christians. After all gay once met happy, having a good time joyful. Not any more since they wanted to be on top of the band wagon shooting hey look at us.
After are there is no White Pride parade now is there? Or having special days at Walt Disney World. Ya they want to be special, that is a given.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Becka03 said:


> I am always NOT surprised that I see the title of a Thread- and I can guess in my own mind who will post with *vague responses that add nothing to the conversation*- just their normal insane rhetoric.



Um... this is... never mind.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I thought it would be a discussion of pettiness and meaness in supporting an agenda. But I can see that pettiness and meaness can't be restrained. 

There are some donations that would be a red flag that this person has a dangerous agenda-like to a group that has a history of violence like the KKK. But this man only donated to a polical campaign that tried to advocate for laws to support his beliefs. He did not contribute to an armed group to murder all gay people. 

So the bottom line is he lost his job because a bunch of people formed an online mob and the company took fright. People who demanded he not be promoted because of this minor donation believe they are right to be a bully in their cause. That he has no right to hold a job where they disapprove of his belief.

It cuts all ways. You can not hold to the idea of the value of diversity if what you really mean is that all people must respect you while you're free to not respect any who is different from you. Which frankly seems to be the way diversity works. 
I think it's a pretty stupid value anyway.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> As far as I can tell, he did not express an opinion anywhere much less anywhere inappropriate. And losing your job for a contribution is more "like ruin lives and careers." Not just criticism.





arabian knight said:


> Yes it isn't even close to being the same. This has gone far enough let businesses do what they believe in dong. This is a free country. OR WAS a free country that is, until the left started all this PC correctness junk, and the gays wanted to stick there ways in the faces of Christians. After all gay once met happy, having a good time joyful. Not any more since they wanted to be on top of the band wagon shooting hey look at us.
> After are there is no White Pride parade now is there? Or having special days at Walt Disney World. Ya they want to be special, that is a given.


Yeah, I miss those free and easy days when we could sit around the office and joke about Bill in accounting being a little light in the loafers. Of course he was always free to bring his "cousin" to the Christmas party while all the normal guys brought their wives or girlfriends. The whispers and snickers about Miss Williams, the PE teacher, left her free to go on vacation with her "girlfriend". They were free to hide who they really were because not to could cost them their career, friends or even their life. 
Yep, life would be so much better if they freely just stayed in those closets.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Yeah, I miss those free and easy days when we could sit around the office and joke about Bill in accounting being a little light in the loafers. Of course he was always free to bring his "cousin" to the Christmas party while all the normal guys brought their wives or girlfriends. The whispers and snickers about Miss Williams, the PE teacher, left her free to go on vacation with her "girlfriend". They were free to hide who they really were because not to could cost them their career, friends or even their life.
> Yep, life would be so much better if they freely just stayed in those closets.


Yep and killed Santa Claus when they weren't pulling the wings off flies. Why stop there? Why not beat them over the head because anyone who doesn't support gay marriage must be a racist too and should be blamed for slavery. Or even more let's blame the Jews for creating a monotheistic religion which lead. To. All this. Bigoty in the..... No wait- that can't be right....... that would make a person an antisemitic and violate the PC code.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2014)

fishinshawn said:


> I wonder if everyone would be as outraged if he had donated $1000 to a bill that made inter racial marriage against the law?
> 
> There is a fantastic amount of bigotry on this forum, I get it though. Many homesteaders are really religious, and the idea of two people of the same sex getting it on is this big horrible thing to you. Well try and remember not everyone thinks like you. That donating $1000 to ban gay marriage is just as bad as donating $1000 to allow slavery....


I wouldn't be outraged if the man donated his $1000 to an organization which was lobbying for "you name it"..it's his money..it's his own opinion...I fail to understand why in 2014, we are somehow supposed to ALL be in agreement with every popular social stance or political theology. 

IMHO, that's horse patooties!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Yep and killed Santa Claus when they weren't pulling the wings off flies. Why stop there? Why not beat them over the head because anyone who doesn't support gay marriage must be a racist too and should be blamed for slavery. Or even more let's blame the Jews for creating a monotheistic religion which lead. To. All this. Bigoty in the..... No wait- that can't be right....... that would make a person an antisemitic and violate the PC code.


I'm not calling anyone anything or saying they're not free to believe how they wish. I'm just saying that having whatever those beliefs are and openly acting on them or proclaiming them can have consequences. I am saying that just because it didn't have a name it doesn't mean that political correctness hasn't always existed. The difference is that what is politically correct speech has changed. Not long ago you would would have been looked at sideways if you didn't laugh at the homophobic joke. Now you're looked at sideways if you tell the joke. Sometimes deciding which is freer is decided by whether you're the teller of the joke or the butt of the joke.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> Hate seems to be the common characteristic on both sides.


Quote of the day.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

where I want to said:


> I thought it would be a discussion of pettiness and meaness in supporting an agenda. But I can see that pettiness and meaness can't be restrained.
> 
> There are some donations that would be a red flag that this person has a dangerous agenda-like to a group that has a history of violence like the KKK. But this man only donated to a polical campaign that tried to advocate for laws to support his beliefs. He did not contribute to an armed group to murder all gay people.
> 
> So the bottom line is he lost his job because a bunch of people formed an online mob and the company took fright. People who demanded he not be promoted because of this minor donation believe they are right to be a bully in their cause. That he has no right to hold a job where they disapprove of his belief.


To me the tactics the people used do seem petty. However, I am looking at it from the comfort of a life where I can be married to the person I love and have that marriage openly accepted. I can't say how I would feel if I were a member of the gay community - let alone a gay employee of this company. 
After all, you're right - it's not like he was financially supporting a group to cause me physical harm. Just legislation that would continue to interfere with my personal life and make it unnecessarily difficult - essentially continuing the legalization of second class citizenry. I don't know how I would have felt or acted had I been in their shoes. I would hope I would have leaned a bit more towards civility but, then again, when civility proves time and time again to not work in your favor, what recourse does one have? One can quietly sit and wait an entire lifetime for laws to change, hoping someone at some point will notice the unfairness. Or they can start to take matters into their own hands and force attention to the cause. The selfishness or virtue of any revolution always depends on which side you are on.

In any case, it's a sorry situation all around. It's a shame that people have to lash out in anger. It's a shame this person, who obviously is talented and a value to the industry, lost his job. It's also a shame he feels threatened by the personal lives of other people.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bloogrssgrl said:


> To me the tactics the people used do seem petty. However, I am looking at it from the comfort of a life where I can be married to the person I love and have that marriage openly accepted. I can't say how I would feel if I were a member of the gay community - let alone a gay employee of this company.
> After all, you're right - it's not like he was financially supporting a group to cause me physical harm. Just legislation that would continue to interfere with my personal life and make it unnecessarily difficult - essentially continuing the legalization of second class citizenry. I don't know how I would have felt or acted had I been in their shoes. I would hope I would have leaned a bit more towards civility but, then again, when civility proves time and time again to not work in your favor, what recourse does one have? One can quietly sit and wait an entire lifetime for laws to change, hoping someone at some point will notice the unfairness. Or they can start to take matters into their own hands and force attention to the cause. The selfishness or virtue of any revolution always depends on which side you are on.
> 
> In any case, it's a sorry situation all around. It's a shame that people have to lash out in anger. It's a shame this person, who obviously is talented and a value to the industry, lost his job. It's also a shame he feels threatened by the personal lives of other people.


I didn't want to get into this- it will just go around the same stupid track. But there are reasons to support not making marrage all about what people personally decide. Marriage is connected to many tax, inheritance, government regulations. It is not just what a person wants that just effects them. There is a reason and a history for marriage that makes a deep rip in the social fabric to change that and there are losers in any such change.

So no, things are much more complex than the simple right to marry who you please. It effects everyone and a person should have the right to express themselves on it without the wolves chewing your head off.

This thread is hopefully about the right to express yourself without being railroaded out of town and not about whether gay marriage is good or bad.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I was curious about the circumstances that allowed others to know that Mr. Eich had supported opposition to gay marriage so I did a little Googling. It seems that in the state of California, you must list your name and your employer when donating to a campaign.



> The controversy stems from a $1,000 donation Eich made in 2008 in his own name &#8211; albeit with Mozilla's name listed alongside it, as US law stipulates &#8211; to the Proposition 8 campaign, an amendment to California law which outlawed same-sex marriage.
> 
> Mozilla is well known for its commitment to open and inclusive technology, pitching itself as a grassroots competitor to commercial companies such as Google. It didn't comment, though, when the controversy originally surfaced back in 2012, and Eich himself only acknowledged the apparent discrepancy in a blogpost which skirted around the issue.


http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ceo-support-prop-8-gay-marriage?commentpage=1

I also found this list which shows the Mozilla -affiliated donations and whether they supported or opposed Proposition 8:

http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/results/?position=both&name=&employer=mozilla&search=Search


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I didn't want to get into this- it will just go around the same stupid track. But there are reasons to support not making marrage all about what people personally decide. Marriage is connected to many tax, inheritance, government regulations. It is not just what a person wants that just effects them. There is a reason and a history for marriage that makes a deep rip in the social fabric to change that and there are losers in any such change.
> 
> So no, things are much more complex than the simple right to marry who you please. It effects everyone and a person should have the right to express themselves on it without the wolves chewing your head off.
> 
> This thread is hopefully about the right to express yourself without being railroaded out of town and not about whether gay marriage is good or bad.


Speaking your mind has consequences. I don't agree with much of what Ted Nugent says. He has made a bunch of money capitalizing on his beliefs. He has also been criticized and likely lost gigs and money because of them. What makes the positive consequences any better and more palatable than the negative ones. Is it only which side of the fence you stand on?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Speaking your mind has consequences. I don't agree with much of what Ted Nugent says. He has made a bunch of money capitalizing on his beliefs. He has also been criticized and likely lost gigs and money because of them. What makes the positive consequences any better and more palatable than the negative ones. Is it only which side of the fence you stand on?


No- mobs of any kind make me shudder.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

where I want to said:


> I didn't want to get into this- it will just go around the same stupid track. But there are reasons to support not making marrage all about what people personally decide. Marriage is connected to many tax, inheritance, government regulations. It is not just what a person wants that just effects them. There is a reason and a history for marriage that makes a deep rip in the social fabric to change that and there are losers in any such change.
> 
> So no, things are much more complex than the simple right to marry who you please. It effects everyone and a person should have the right to express themselves on it without the wolves chewing your head off.
> 
> This thread is hopefully about the right to express yourself without being railroaded out of town and not about whether gay marriage is good or bad.


I realize there are a whole host of economic and legal benefits to marriage, which is precisely WHY gay individuals are trying to secure this right.

I don't feel as though I'm going off topic here. Mr. Eich chose a financial contribution to be his method of expression, the others chose social media. My point here is, without walking a mile in the shoes of any of the individuals involved, I don't feel as though I have the complete understanding of the situation to comment on the validity of their actions or reactions. If you somehow do feel as though you are able to sit in such judgment, I hope you are afforded judges with as complete an understanding when you are the one on trial.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> No- mobs of any kind make me shudder.


Doesn't answer the question of why you seem to think speaking your mind shouldn't come with potential negative consequences.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bloogrssgrl said:


> I realize there are a whole host of economic and legal benefits to marriage, which is precisely WHY gay individuals are trying to secure this right.
> 
> I don't feel as though I'm going off topic here. Mr. Eich chose a financial contribution to be his method of expression, the others chose social media. My point here is, without walking a mile in the shoes of any of the individuals involved, I don't feel as though I have the complete understanding of the situation to comment on the validity of their actions or reactions. If you somehow do feel as though you are able to sit in such judgment, I hope you are afforded judges with as complete an understanding when you are the one on trial.


Well, there are plenty here to point out the errors of my ways. Luckily most can't actually get at me as they could to this man. 
You might consider that there is a difference between supporting a cause and being a part of a lynch mob.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

The question is whether a very vocal minority should have the power of intimidation and shaming to affect major decisions of a corporation.

It has nothing to do with the straw man arguments put forth by the leftists here, and nothing to do with gay marriage - right or wrong.

Political correctness being used as a club to pummel an individual for expressing their personal beliefs is reprehensible, but should be expected when toleration is no longer the aim, but celebration of an agenda is demanded.

I'd like to know where these groups were when obama held the same (public) beliefs in 2008.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Not an excuse, just the reality of the human condition. I know none of you hate gays..... as long as they don't flaunt it by doing things like holding hands in public.


Gays better get used to being hated, just like every person on the earth is hated for SOMETHING. Big deal, teach you kids to handle it. This nonsence in getting bad because of the great Divider we have in the WH.

Kid runs into street, White man gets beaten almost to death by 10 Black men, for hitting kid when he stops to check on child. And they question if this is a hate crime.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/04...-check-on-welfare-of-child-struck-by-his-car/
When I drive in parts of Flint, Saginaw, Det. same thing. People walk in the road , cross right in your way deliberately , they have this ,"You better watch out for ME" "I'm entitled" Cocky, horrible attitude. And people wounder why these areas are dying, the hate, and they are just looking for someone to take it out on.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Ozarks Tom said:


> The question is whether a very vocal minority should have the power of intimidation and shaming to affect major decisions of a corporation.
> 
> It has nothing to do with the straw man arguments put forth by the leftists here, and nothing to do with gay marriage - right or wrong.
> 
> ...


Or maybe it's a question of whether the minority has the right to speak out in the first place without being punished by the majority. You seem to imply that the minority has no right to be vocal. That works well until you're no longer in the majority. The vocal minority only expressed an opinion. It was the company and other board members, and Mr Eich himself, looking out for their own financial well being that made the decision for him to leave.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

bostonlesley said:


> I wouldn't be outraged if the man donated his $1000 to an organization which was lobbying for "you name it"..it's his money..it's his own opinion...*I fail to understand why in 2014, we are somehow supposed to ALL be in agreement with every popular social stance or political theology.*
> 
> IMHO, that's horse patooties!


Conformists are always humbling fools. The worst of this "modern" cycle of humbling fools is that they have enlisted the aid of many in government and judicial circles, and *that *takes their movement into totalitarianism.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Or maybe it's a question of whether the minority has the right to speak out in the first place without being punished by the majority. You seem to imply that the minority has no right to be vocal. That works well until you're no longer in the majority. The vocal minority only expressed an opinion. It was the company and other board members, and Mr Eich himself, looking out for their own financial well being that made the decision for him to leave.


Yet another deflection of the point being discussed. Nobody has suggested any group or individual, minority or majority, haven't the right to voice their opinion.

However, if that's the best argument you've got, how about the rights of the smallest minority - the individual. Mr Eich expressed himself as an individual, and a group of intolerant special interest bullies denounced him and his firm in a very malicious manner.

If you really believe Mr Eich left a position he'd had 10 days, from a company he co-founded out of concern for his own "well being", you must be referring to the hate filled public pronouncements and not so veiled threats directed at him.

Nice bunch of folks you're defending there!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Yet another deflection of the point being discussed. Nobody has suggested any group or individual, minority or majority, haven't the right to voice their opinion.
> 
> However, if that's the best argument you've got, how about the rights of the smallest minority - the individual. Mr Eich expressed himself as an individual, and a group of intolerant special interest bullies denounced him and his firm in a very malicious manner.
> 
> ...


And nice selective quoting on your part. I referred to Mr. Eich's financial well being. He and the other board members made a decision to protect their financial investment in the company. If you agree that all sides have the right to have their opinions heard I'm not sure what the kerfluffle is about other than you don't like the opinion of one side. Maybe your issue should be with the board who may have influenced his decision or even Mr Eich himself who caved to the pressure.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I am certain that if this fellow had donated $1,000 to campaign to outlaw prayer in schools, and prayer was, in fact, outlawed as a result, Christians wouldn't have supported a boycott of his company. The good man was simply exercising his right to political speech, and it would be wrong to penalize him for his viewpoint. Am I right?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I am certain that if this fellow had donated $1,000 to campaign to outlaw prayer in schools, and prayer was, in fact, outlawed as a result, Christians wouldn't have supported a boycott of his company. The good man was simply exercising his right to political speech, and it would be wrong to penalize him for his viewpoint. Am I right?


I wouldn't go after the man, but would fight the process and let the courts decide. There are no courts involved with this situation, so your strawman is moot! Are you still "certain" about your position on this?


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> I am certain that if this fellow had donated $1,000 to campaign to outlaw prayer in schools, and prayer was, in fact, outlawed as a result, Christians wouldn't have supported a boycott of his company. The good man was simply exercising his right to political speech, and it would be wrong to penalize him for his viewpoint. Am I right?


No. This Christian, and all of my Christian friends don't give a rats behind who donates his own money to whom...it is NONE of my business.

Madeline O'Hare raised beautiful horses, and sold them to many people. One does not have to agree with another's political or religious stance in order to do business. 

I don't query my physician to determine if her political views match my own, or if she's a closet communist, or if she and her husband view porn in their bedroom..I don't care...nor do any of my friends. 

The people who DO seem to care very much are the extremists on both sides..silly donkeys full of braying hot air.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I am certain that if this fellow had donated $1,000 to campaign to outlaw prayer in schools, and prayer was, in fact, outlawed as a result, Christians wouldn't have supported a boycott of his company. The good man was simply exercising his right to political speech, and it would be wrong to penalize him for his viewpoint. Am I right?


Prayer *is* outlawed in public schools....


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> Prayer *is* outlawed in public schools....


No it's not. Organized prayer, sanctioned by the state is, but I'd bet prayers are said every school day in a public school somewhere.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I am certain that if this fellow had donated $1,000 to campaign to outlaw prayer in schools, and prayer was, in fact, outlawed as a result, Christians wouldn't have supported a boycott of his company. The good man was simply exercising his right to political speech, and it would be wrong to penalize him for his viewpoint. Am I right?


A closer analogy would be to hound him out of his job because he supported gay marriage. Now you answer whether you would be ok with that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Still waiting on a answer to my question as to why it is wrong that exercising your right to free speech may have negative consequences. If nothing bad can ever happen to you are we creeping closer to not keeping score in kid's soccer games. The horror.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Still waiting on a answer to my question as to why it is wrong that exercising your right to free speech may have negative consequences. If nothing bad can ever happen to you are we creeping closer to not keeping score in kid's soccer games. The horror.


If you're waiting for me, I didn't because the whole point is that having an opinion without taking action should not result in much of anything except the company who chose to be with you socially. It comes way too close to thought police. It is simply not a relevant question.


----------



## lindamarie (Jul 9, 2013)

remember back during segregation you could only shop, eat, wash your hands, etc where your specific group was allowed? Seems as if we are heading right back there. 

maybe we should just make it easier: stores, businesses, etc in section A, cater to this group. Section B, this group; and so on. You don't like what the owner at the bakery in section A believes in take your business to section B. 

some people have nothing better to do than to judge others, they need to make others as small as possible so that they feel powerful.

when I go shop at Kroger, I look for a certain cashier. If he's there, no matter how long his line is, I'll wait. I don't know this guy personally. What I do know is that he's extremely pleasant, always has a smile. Don't get perturbed with the million questions my dgd asks him. Always asks how we're doing. He's about 22 years old. Most days he doesn't have a line of customers, people don't want to deal with his kind. He's black. 

my children have been called -------s, my dh is from Cuba. 

I don't give a flying pig where your grandparents came from, what color or type of panties you have on under your jeans. Everyone is so quick to judge, to push their beliefs in your face. All PC has done is make more people angry by having to worry about if they are going to be blasted for using a term that nay not fit. 

this president keeps talking about crossing the line, drawing a line, the red line. He has done more line drawing and causing divisions than any lack of PC has done.

oh and spare me the I'm evil right winger. I voted for the idiot. He promised hope and change a better future. I bought into it. The only thing I'm hoping for is 2016 to hurry up and get here, that the bodies occupying our government offices will change and maybe we might have a chance at some sort of future.

I'm appalled at the amount of meanness and cruelty that a people can inflict. Yes, I'm having a bad day. Sorry, probably didn't even make sense.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> If you're waiting for me, I didn't because the whole point is that having an opinion without taking action should not result in much of anything except the company who chose to be with you socially. It comes way too close to thought police. It is simply not a relevant question.


Mr. Eich expressed an opinion and took an action by making the donation. Those opposing him expressed an opinion and took an action by threatening boycott. The truth is that Mr Eich's action sought to bring more government control into people's lives. The protestors used the free market to leverage their views. Which is the more conservative ideal?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Mr. Eich expressed an opinion and took an action by making the donation. Those opposing him expressed an opinion and took an action by threatening boycott. The truth is that Mr Eich's action sought to bring more government control into people's lives. The protestors used the free market to leverage their views. Which is the more conservative ideal?


I had written a reply but have decided that ignoring this is the only way of not getting dragged into something ever more personal.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I had written a reply but have decided that ignoring this is the only way of not getting dragged into something ever more personal.


These things always wind up in ad hominem attacks. Always. That's why the last thread about this---the "cakewalk" thread---was closed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I had written a reply but have decided that ignoring this is the only way of not getting dragged into something ever more personal.


I'm sorry you feel that way. To be clear, I don't think the people who organized the protest against Mr Eich did anything wrong. I also don't think that the people who have organized Christian based protests and boycotts of a variety of companies and individuals are doing anything wrong. I don't think that the people who flocked to Chick-fil-a to show their support did anything noble. I don't even think Mr Eich did anything wrong. All were exercising their right to use their voice and their money to influence the world to be more like they would like it to be. That some were more successful in exerting that influence doesn't make them right, wrong, evil or good. It just makes them successful in their eyes.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Well, there are plenty here to point out the errors of my ways. Luckily most can't actually get at me as they could to this man.
> You might consider that there is a difference between supporting a cause and being a part of a lynch mob.


Just because there are plenty of people here who point out supposed errors of your ways it doesn't make them right. Why sink a level you don't like? But also consider, it is one thing to have a discussion/debate with a person about her/his view directly (as on a discussion board or a face-to-face conversation) but a different thing to cast judgment from afar.

I agree that there is a difference between the way Mr. Eich supports his cause and the way his opponents choose to support theirs. There is also a difference in the situation in that he was supporting the status quo and his opponents are trying to change a long standing legal situation. Again, what one might see as a lynch mob another might see as revolutionaries. 

I'm not really crazy about how it all went down, for both sides. But I have several gay people who are very close friends and I see how the current situation affects their lives. I'm thankful that I currently have the law on the side I happened to be born on and I don't have to fight this fight for my own personal life. I'm saddened, however, that many of my friends do. It's hard not to take this issue n a personal way and I apologize if it seems that I am.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I wouldn't go after the man, but would fight the process and let the courts decide. There are no courts involved with this situation, so your strawman is moot! Are you still "certain" about your position on this?


You are correct; no courts are involved; simply citizens exercising their right to boycott a business whose CEO holds views contrary to their own.

Certainly Christian groups have used similar tactics. I'm thinking of the one -- is it Focus on the Family? -- that calls for boycotting businesses that choose to express sentiments like "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in their marketing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. :shrug:


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

I don't know if prayer in public schools is a good comparison. Even though prayer is not sanctioned in public schools, there are private schools associated with churches or homeschooling options where a person can obtain an education _legally recognized by our government_ (as long as it meets certain criteria) while enjoying the right to prayer during the school day. There is no similar across the board alternative for gay people.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way. To be clear, I don't think the people who organized the protest against Mr Eich did anything wrong. I also don't think that the people who have organized Christian based protests and boycotts of a variety of companies and individuals are doing anything wrong. I don't think that the people who flocked to Chick-fil-a to show their support did anything noble. I don't even think Mr Eich did anything wrong. All were exercising their right to use their voice and their money to influence the world to be more like they would like it to be. That some were more successful in exerting that influence doesn't make them right, wrong, evil or good. It just makes them successful in their eyes.


This I can address. No, I think mob action, especially made convenient by the internet, is uncivil. The ability to do something is not the measure of its decency. 
I suspect the man left the job for the sake of the company but no one should be forced into that action for making a donation to a non-violent, legally formed political action committee. It is just twenty first century rabble rousing and the company should not be forced to choose between viability or censoring every aspect of life. It is the French Revolution's idea of justice- death by opinion.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> You are correct; no courts are involved; simply citizens exercising their right to boycott a business whose CEO holds views contrary to their own.
> 
> Certainly Christian groups have used similar tactics. I'm thinking of the one -- is it Focus on the Family? -- that calls for boycotting businesses that choose to express sentiments like "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in their marketing.
> 
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander. :shrug:


Yes it IS good for the gander. Folks are fighting back against Eich leaving and are requesting a boycott of Firefox. We use that and I've requested that my IT department look for an alternative. If one can be found, and I'm sure they'll come up with something cause their awesome, Firefox will be removed from our normal computers. (That's about 80 licenses)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

bloogrssgrl said:


> I don't know if prayer in public schools is a good comparison. Even though prayer is not sanctioned in public schools, there are private schools associated with churches or homeschooling options where a person can obtain an education _legally recognized by our government_ (as long as it meets certain criteria) while enjoying the right to prayer during the school day. There is no similar across the board alternative for gay people.


School is mandatory, being gay is not!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> This I can address. No, I think mob action, especially made convenient by the internet, is uncivil. The ability to do something is not the measure of its decency.
> I suspect the man left the job for the sake of the company but no one should be forced into that action for making a donation to a non-violent, legally formed political action committee. It is just twenty first century rabble rousing and the company should not be forced to choose between viability or censoring every aspect of life. It is the French Revolution's idea of justice- death by opinion.


While I understand your position it still leaves the question of what makes one exercise of free speech correct in your mind and the other wrong. Nothing illegal was done in either case. Both actions if successful would have, depending on your view, a negative action on others. What is the difference? Is it that one mob is the unwashed internet rabble and the other a legitimate organized political entity?


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Homosexual activist and columnist Andrew Sullivan is disgusted by the fanaticism that presently holds the homosexual agenda people in thrall:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/04/andrew-sullivan-disgusted-by-gay-rights-fanaticism-mozilla/

From the article; "Openly-gay journalist Andrew Sullivan expressed his âdisgustâ over Mozilla CEO Brendan Eichâs resignation for his one-time opposition to gay marriage, calling it a symptom of gay rights âfanaticismâ and warning *the movement is fast becoming âno better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.â* End of quotes.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Dr.Charles Krauthammer is calling for a boycott of Mozilla, calls the actions taken by employees to remove their CEO "totalitarian": 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/04/k...tt-after-company-fired-anti-gay-marriage-ceo/

From the article; "This is totalitarian discourse, and it shows a level of intolerance that is absolutely â it should be unacceptable, and people ought to get what theyâre giving out and field a counter-boycottâ End of quotes.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, this morning I went to a website that I use on a daily basis and found the following message.



> This web site does not support the Firefox Browser. Please consider switching to a browser that supports the 1st amendment and the basic right of an American to express their political opinions.
> 
> - Chrome
> - Internet Explorer
> ...


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> While I understand your position it still leaves the question of what makes one exercise of free speech correct in your mind and the other wrong.


It's a free country, and I think every person should be free to contribute to the cause of his choice, or to participate in a boycott. I'm not condemning either side for exercising its conscience. I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is for Christians to condemn the boycott as a tactic when they've used it as well. 

I think the take-away message from this flap is that companies should avoid waffling. It's probably best for business if companies who find themselves in a situation like this take a stand and stick to it. When they reverse their position, it's not like they gain a huge amount of credibility with the people they've already offended. Nope, you don't get to unring the bell. Instead, _everyone_ despises you!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> No it's not. Organized prayer, sanctioned by the state is, but I'd bet prayers are said every school day in a public school somewhere.


some schools have stopped and sanctioned students for praying out loud. Valedictorians have been forced to alter their speech in advance, or been stopped on the stage, or prevented from giving their speech if it contained a prayer or even a thank you to Jesus.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

I certainly remember how Tim Tebo was treated by those tolerant and compassionate haters!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

The CEO should not have resigned. It is illegal to fire someone for religious views. 

I have mixed thoughts about all this. While I hate PC-ness, I am someone who votes with my dollars. I do not support businesses that take public positions counter to my beliefs. A local gun shop and range is owned by a black family and they avidly support Obama. I don't shun everyone who ever voted for Obama, but I give my gun dollars to 2A supporters, not those working against it. 

So if folks want to boycott a company, that's their right. I'm not hard core anti gay marriage but I ate at Chic-fil-a on their day to show my support of religious freedom is more important than making every biz kneel down to the PC topic of the day, and that's my right.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> *The CEO should not have resigned.* It is illegal to fire someone for religious views.
> 
> I have mixed thoughts about all this. While I hate PC-ness, I am someone who votes with my dollars. I do not support businesses that take public positions counter to my beliefs. A local gun shop and range is owned by a black family and they avidly support Obama. I don't shun everyone who ever voted for Obama, but I give my gun dollars to 2A supporters, not those working against it.
> 
> So if folks want to boycott a company, that's their right. I'm not hard core anti gay marriage but I ate at Chic-fil-a on their day to show my support of religious freedom is more important than making every biz kneel down to the PC topic of the day, and that's my right.


I've been reading some about this in the online media. Apparently some dating site named "okcupid" conducted a vicious smear campaign against Brendan Eich, the CEO and co-founder of Mozilla Firefox, and conducted an online boycott of Mozilla to get him fired....because they don't like him. It's ironic, because according to "okcupid" you have to have JavaScript to use their product, and guess who invented JavaScript? Yup, Brendan Eich. 

But it appears that Eich resigned because "okcupid" was damaging business. HA! Now that even MORE people (do the math---2% homosexuals vs. 98% heterosexuals) are going to boycott Mozilla, well, whatever "okcupid" and the Mozilla "employees were trying to do, it's a fail no matter what.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

where I want to said:


> I didn't want to get into this- it will just go around the same stupid track. But there are reasons to support not making marrage all about what people personally decide. Marriage is connected to many tax, inheritance, government regulations. It is not just what a person wants that just effects them. There is a reason and a history for marriage that makes a deep rip in the social fabric to change that and there are losers in any such change.


If joe marries bob it has no real effect on YOU! Joe and Bob derserve the same rights as joe and jane. 




FeralFemale said:


> Prayer *is* outlawed in public schools....


Forced, state sanctioned prayer is outlawed, personal prayer is not.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> School is mandatory, being gay is not!


That is probably the most ignorant quote I have read on here. Being gay is no more of a choice for gay people then hetro is for others. You are born that way.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> School is mandatory, being gay is not!


Unless, of course, one is gay.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Unless, of course, one is gay.


Contrary to what you were taught, being gay is NOT mandatory!


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Contrary to what you were taught, being gay is NOT mandatory!


Contrary to your understanding, it's as much a choice as being heterosexual is.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Contrary to your understanding, it's as much a choice as being heterosexual is.


Then it should be really easy for you to prove that gay folks are born that way, so, where's your proof?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Then it should be really easy for you to prove that gay folks are born that way, so, where's your proof?


If you get into this battle, then this thread will become a hatefest. Which is where the peopke who believe intimidation is just free speech like to have it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

where I want to said:


> If you get into this battle, then this thread will become a hatefest. Which is where the peopke who believe intimidation is just free speech like to have it.


Yup, your right! I am excusing myself from further participation in this thread.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

People have the right to vote with their dollars. I've mentioned on more than one occasion that there are certain establishments that I won't patronize for various reasons.

When you consider that Mr. Eich is one of the co-founders of Mozilla, you can be certain that he will lose regardless of our personal thoughts on the matter. As a co-founder, it is likely that he still owns a portion of the company. So... no matter who boycotts the company and its products, it will cut into Mr. Eich's wallet. In resigning, he probably received a bonus/golden parachute that hasn't been revealed to the rest of us yet. He didn't have to resign. He didn't want the company to lose business. He could have waited a few weeks for everyone to move on to something else. Instead he felt that it was prudent to resign.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Then it should be really easy for you to prove that gay folks are born that way, so, where's your proof?


It's in the people who have been in my life, for over 30+ years in some cases. I can't trot each and every one of them out for you to personally know for years as I have but, fortunately, I don't feel compelled to prove anything to you. You have embraced your opinion and it isn't my mission to change it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why is "Prove they were born gay" trotted out all the time? Why does anyone have to prove that? Do I have to drop my pants and prove I am female?


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

fishinshawn said:


> That is probably the most ignorant quote I have read on here. *Being gay is no more of a choice for gay people then hetro is for others. You are born that way*.


Link to *scientific proof* of the so-called "gay gene", please.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> While I understand your position it still leaves the question of what makes one exercise of free speech correct in your mind and the other wrong. Nothing illegal was done in either case. Both actions if successful would have, depending on your view, a negative action on others. What is the difference? Is it that one mob is the unwashed internet rabble and the other a legitimate organized political entity?


Yes- that is exactly true. One is to present to the voters what their opinion for the voters to decide. The other is to cause harm to a person based on not liking his speech and whipping up a group of people destroy what they can to force their desires by intimidation.

By your lights of free speech, a bully who gets his friends into a group to intimate a kid in school is exercising free speech. 

What are these people going to do if some real issue comes up? They've already formed a mob to intimidate this man into keeping quiet. If if that is the penalty for the most mild of free speech, their only recourse will be physical violence for some real issue.

Free speech is free speech only when there is no intimidation for exercising that speech. Would you condone the burning of a mosque because a member makes a rude or hostile speech? No? Then how can you condone the burning of a person's business or career for a much more mild free speech? Being sanitized by using the Internet rather than matches makes no difference- destruction is the goal.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Yes- that is exactly true. One is to present to the voters what their opinion for the voters to decide. The other is to cause harm to a person based on not liking his speech and whipping up a group of people destroy what they can to force their desires by intimidation.
> 
> By your lights of free speech, a bully who gets his friends into a group to intimate a kid in school is exercising free speech.
> 
> ...


RE: quote in bold above: Which is why we are advocating preparedness for all scenarios. Those guys are no different than any other mob.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Being sanitized by using the Internet rather than matches makes no difference- destruction is the goal.


And one could say that being sanitized by using political contributions rather than matches makes no difference when oppression is the goal. 

Which, quite frankly, is how I feel about our government in general when considering the influence of money. The small time voter has very little say. But that's a different argument for a different thread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why is this a "mob" instead of a group of people exercising their free speech?

Are people protesting wars or court rulings mobs?

A group of people and employees from around the world took to their computers and voiced an opinion. They did not hound or follow or protest in front of his home.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Yes- that is exactly true. One is to present to the voters what their opinion for the voters to decide. The other is to cause harm to a person based on not liking his speech and whipping up a group of people destroy what they can to force their desires by intimidation.
> 
> By your lights of free speech, a bully who gets his friends into a group to intimate a kid in school is exercising free speech.
> 
> ...


But he didn't have to back down. He seems to have made what might turn out to be a misguided business decision to resign. He could just as well have legitimately stood up for his beliefs. It seems to have worked for for Chick-fil-a and the Robertson clan. When confronted by bullies you can turn and run or you can stand up for yourself. As has been pointed out you can't legislate morality or force someone to be nice. You can be the bigger person and eloquently defend yourself. I know who I want heading my business regardless of their views on gay marriage.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Why is this a "mob" instead of a group of people exercising their free speech?
> 
> Are people protesting wars or court rulings mobs?
> 
> A group of people and employees from around the world took to their computers and voiced an opinion. They did not hound or follow or protest in front of his home.


In a *Culture WAR *a person must pick sides and along with that goes what you think of your opposition. There are no "grey areas". You of all people should know that.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

TheMartianChick said:


> People have the right to vote with their dollars. I've mentioned on more than one occasion that there are certain establishments that I won't patronize for various reasons.
> 
> When you consider that Mr. Eich is one of the co-founders of Mozilla, you can be certain that he will lose regardless of our personal thoughts on the matter. As a co-founder, it is likely that he still owns a portion of the company. So... no matter who boycotts the company and its products, it will cut into Mr. Eich's wallet. In resigning, he probably received a bonus/golden parachute that hasn't been revealed to the rest of us yet. He didn't have to resign. He didn't want the company to lose business. He could have waited a few weeks for everyone to move on to something else. Instead he felt that it was prudent to resign.


The difference is between a person saying I will not patronize a business that behaves in a way I don't like and my saying I will try to organize all the people I can to ruin a business where one person made a donation to support a cause I don't like solely to get rid of that one person.
If he got a bazillion dollars, it would not be right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homstdr74 said:


> In a *Culture WAR *a person must pick sides and along with that goes what you think of your opposition. There are no "grey areas". You of all people should know that.


It is a mob because it is a culture war? I of all people don't get that one bit.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

homstdr74 said:


> I've been reading some about this in the online media. Apparently some dating site named "okcupid" conducted a vicious smear campaign against Brendan Eich, the CEO and co-founder of Mozilla Firefox, and conducted an online boycott of Mozilla to get him fired....because they don't like him. It's ironic, because according to "okcupid" you have to have JavaScript to use their product, and guess who invented JavaScript? Yup, Brendan Eich.
> 
> But it appears that Eich resigned because "okcupid" was damaging business. HA! Now that even MORE people (do the math---2% homosexuals vs. 98% heterosexuals) are going to boycott Mozilla, well, whatever "okcupid" and the Mozilla "employees were trying to do, it's a fail no matter what.



This is the only post in the whole thread that brings up that 12% of Mozilla not getting to Okcupid due to OkCupid blocking firefox in protest.
(searched thread using Okcupid)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozilla-ceo-resignation-free-speech/7328759/

And he did the donation 6 years ago. 

Hard to see/watch how this was done.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Here is another take on the topic by columnist LZ Granderson:



> The country's present attitude regarding same-sex marriage is not top secret. And neither is Eich's past. Mozilla should've had a better strategy than "let's hope nobody notices."
> Yet the fact that the board caved to the pressure, instead of standing behind its choice, suggested it was completely blindsided by the uproar. This is mind-boggling considering that the controversies surrounding Chick-fil-A and Paula Deen did not happen in an alternate universe. By all accounts Eich, who helped develop some of the Web's most important technologies, was qualified for the job and Mozilla would likely be hurt by his resignation.
> But Mozilla is an activist organization more than a money-making corporation. The Apples and Googles of the world can lure top young talent with money and perks. Mozilla's recruiting success depends on its ability to sell its mission. Thus the effectiveness of the CEO rests heavily on his or her ability to foster a community, not just make a buck.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/opinion/granderson-mozilla-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=op_t1


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Why is this a "mob" instead of a group of people exercising their free speech?
> 
> Are people protesting wars or court rulings mobs?
> .


The difference was the intent and action to destroy. They made it clear that was the goal. That is a mob. And they had this goal not based on anything the company actually did but on the private donation of one man. 
It would be the same as if someone expressed a different opinion that offended someone here and an offended party emailed everyone they could to become a member and gang up to drive the offending pister off the forum. 
The end result of such extreme, however distantly done, action is to live in a world of bullies.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

TheMartianChick said:


> Here is another take on the topic by columnist LZ Granderson:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/opinion/granderson-mozilla-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=op_t1


While it may be so that some of "Mozilla" is some sort of activist organization, the fact is that Eich made it on his own merit, and created things that no one else did or could do. It's yet another tragic commentary on so-called "modern society" that mobs of uncreative people can trash an individual who has something going for them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

TheMartianChick said:


> Here is another take on the topic by columnist LZ Granderson:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/opinion/granderson-mozilla-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=op_t1


But that means that online bullies have more power, not that it was right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> The difference was the intent and action to destroy. They made it clear that was the goal. That is a mob. And they had this goal not based on anything the company actually did but on the private donation of one man.
> It would be the same as if someone expressed a different opinion that offended someone here and an offended party emailed everyone they could to become a member and gang up to drive the offending pister off the forum.
> The end result of such extreme, however distantly done, action is to live in a world of bullies.


So if they had done it to get him the job they would not be a mob.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Twobottom said:


> I had a very good friend of mine who is gay I say 'had' because we are no longer on speaking terms. I have the temerity to believe that a business owner should be free to do business with whomever he wants, and NOT do business with whomever he wants.
> 
> That recent case where the gay couple wanted a cake baked by a baker who did not want to do it due to his beliefs sparked the conversation. I kept insisting that I wouldn't refuse to do business with a gay person, but if someone else did then I believe they have that right. To me it's a private property issue, not a gay issue. I am obviously not a homophobe since the guy was best man at my wedding!


If your friend was black, he'd probably be upset with you, as well. 

Perhaps he sees it as _human right_, not just a property right, since he's the one, being discriminated against.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

painterswife said:


> It is a mob because it is a culture war? I of all people don't get that one bit.


As I tried to politely explain, you wouldn't, would you? You're on the other side.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> If your friend was black, he'd probably be upset with you, as well.
> 
> Perhaps he sees it as _human right_, not just a property right, since he's the one, being discriminated against.


Discrimination? "No Irish need apply". "Death to Catholics, who are un-American". "No Jews allowed". "Whites Only". "How many Poles does it take to screw in a light bulb?" etc. 

Did any of those groups do anything similar to this mob? No, they, one and all, made it on their MERIT, not riding on someone's Civil Rights coattail, or begging for sympathy and thriving on pity. Discrimination? Tell us about it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homstdr74 said:


> As I tried to politely explain, you wouldn't, would you? You're on the other side.


I am not on either side. I would not want anyone to lose their job no matter what their personal beliefs. It happens though to be how business is done here in the US.

I read it here everyday over and over " If you don't like it get another job" "If the company owner does not like your politics he can fire you." "They own the company they can do what they want."

I just don't understand why it is a mob only when it is a group that has chosen a stance against yours.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> So if they had done it to get him the job they would not be a mob.


I'm not sure what you mean but I have never heard the term mob used for the purpose of rational expression. Mobs are bent on destruction and intimidation.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Frankly, I blame Mozilla.

Corporations cower in fear of "special interest" groups, which is usually not much more, than a few loudmouths and a media, thirsting for something new to broadcast _today_. _OK-Cupid_._com_ is unhappy? Oh-no. 

The correct Corporate response should have been, that is was his (my) choice to donate, based on his (my)personal beliefs.

*End-of-story.*

Miley or Barack, would then have come along done something "newsworthy" and everybody would forget all about this non-story. The gay Mozilla workers, will probably still grumble and slough off on the job even more, but it's not like he didn't make the donation *6 years ago*. 

Even if it didn't blow over right away, presumably, one should stand up for their beliefs, verses running away, like a coward.

Chick-fil-A did it and ended up stronger.

If Mozilla was worried more about their stock price (which the quitters probably owned a lot of), then they have set, what is most important to them and it's not preserving marriage.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup, your right! I am excusing myself from further participation in this thread.


For that I'm sorry as I found your information on counter-intimidation informative.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

homstdr74 said:


> Discrimination? "No Irish need apply". "Death to Catholics, who are un-American". "No Jews allowed". "Whites Only". "How many Poles does it take to screw in a light bulb?" etc.
> 
> Did any of those groups do anything similar to this mob? No, they, one and all, made it on their MERIT, not riding on someone's Civil Rights coattail, or begging for sympathy and thriving on pity. Discrimination? Tell us about it.


The classes you mentioned are, for the most part, now protected classes. However, the civil rights fight was not always a nicely played one. There is often quite a bit of outright violence in the chasing down of rights. The fight for workers' rights is one that comes to mind right off the bat where things became violent before any sort of legal change was made to the system. 

It would be great if our political system and government was truly representative of the people at large and not merely a side show to distract the masses and make them feel as though they have a voice in policy when, in reality, they don't. The fact that people like us will debate these social issues with such passion is very convenient for turning attention away from the economic policies that keep the majority of people under thumb. It never surprises me that gay marriage, abortion, etc. are the hot topics at election time.

And with that, I'm going to bow out, as I know I won't change any minds here and continuing to argue with people who are mostly in the same boat as I serves no purpose in forwarding any of our lives.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I've been reading some about this in the online media. Apparently some dating site named "okcupid" conducted a vicious smear campaign against Brendan Eich, the CEO and co-founder of Mozilla Firefox, and conducted an online boycott of Mozilla to get him fired.


A "vicious smear campaign"? _Really?_ I read what was on the OKCupid site, and they were merely pointing out --factually, it seems -- that Eich donated to a campaign to outlaw gay marriage. 

A "vicious smear campaign," to my way of thinking, involves innuendo or outright lies, which doesn't seem to be the case here. 



> The question is whether a very vocal minority should have the power of intimidation and shaming to affect major decisions of a corporation.


I suspect you would answer "yes" if the minority were fighting for a cause you believed in.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Your perspective depends on where you stand ...



> Then it should be really easy for you to prove that gay folks are born that way, so, where's your proof?


Anyone who has watched a generation grow up knows it's evident, if not from birth, at least from childhood, long before puberty.

Ha, I remember 25 years ago, my husband at the time idly mentioning the possibility that his nephew might turn out to be gay. Eddie was maybe 8 or 9 at the time. Recently, I was looking at some of my ex-in-law's Facebook pages and found a link to Eddie's, which contained wedding pictures. He and his groom made a nice-looking couple and I hope they're very happy together. 



> A closer analogy would be to hound him out of his job because he supported gay marriage. Now you answer whether you would be ok with that.


A lot of LGBT people have taken considerable risks to stand up for what we believe in and advance the cause of equality. Sometimes there are unpleasant consequences for holding a minority viewpoint. (We can take heart in the notion that while the arc of history is long, it bends toward justice.) If appears Mr. Eich did not consider that possibility when he took a position on a controversial issue, and now he's paying the price. So be it. :shrug:



> If Mozilla was worried more about their stock price (which the quitters probably owned a lot of), then they have set, what is most important to them and it's not preserving marriage.


The idea that we can 'preserve marriage' by preventing people from getting married is rather like a bank saying it's going to prevent robberies by stopping customers from making deposits. :hysterical:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

homstdr74 said:


> Link to *scientific proof* of the so-called "gay gene", please.


It's not really "genetic", but theories point to balances of androgen, testosterone and other chemical, during fetal development, where sexuality is developed.

Some of it, may be brain chemistry, also.

The notion that being gay is _always_ a choice, is a silly one, IMO and is based on nothing.

*Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> It's not really "genetic", but theories point to balances of androgen, testosterone and other chemical, during fetal development, where sexuality is developed.
> 
> Some of it, may be brain chemistry, also.
> 
> ...


So, according to you, "*The notion that being gay is always a choice, is a silly one, IMO and is based on nothing." *Sort of like the notion that homosexuals are all born that way, eh? With no actual scientific knowledge to that effect, how can anyone state categorically that something is absolutely so? While there are physical gender mistakes, I'm certain that there are also some mental gender mistakes that lead to the confusion of some individuals. But that certainly doesn't account for the kids who are being misled into the nonsense of the third sex world by gender confused people who are only into the politics of it for picking them up.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

fishinshawn said:


> I wonder if everyone would be as outraged if he had donated $1000 to a bill that made inter racial marriage against the law?
> 
> There is a fantastic amount of bigotry on this forum, I get it though. Many homesteaders are really religious, and the idea of two people of the same sex getting it on is this big horrible thing to you. Well try and remember not everyone thinks like you. That donating $1000 to ban gay marriage is just as bad as donating $1000 to allow slavery....


Sticking to your beliefs is bigotry now?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TheMartianChick said:


> I was curious about the circumstances that allowed others to know that Mr. Eich had supported opposition to gay marriage so I did a little Googling. It seems that in the state of California, you must list your name and your employer when donating to a campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's handy when an agenda calls for the suppression of all dissenting opinions and donations.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> I am certain that if this fellow had donated $1,000 to campaign to outlaw prayer in schools, and prayer was, in fact, outlawed as a result, Christians wouldn't have supported a boycott of his company. The good man was simply exercising his right to political speech, and it would be wrong to penalize him for his viewpoint. Am I right?


The hate mongers on the left already outlawed prayer in school


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> No it's not. Organized prayer, sanctioned by the state is, but I'd bet prayers are said every school day in a public school somewhere.


As long as they keep it "in the closet"?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Still waiting on a answer to my question as to why it is wrong that exercising your right to free speech may have negative consequences. If nothing bad can ever happen to you are we creeping closer to not keeping score in kid's soccer games. The horror.


People should be punished for speaking out or supporting their beliefs?
That's Obamastan for you.
Liberty is dead and the left killed it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

where I want to said:


> I had written a reply but have decided that ignoring this is the only way of not getting dragged into something ever more personal.


Good idea
When you wallow with pigs you are bound to get muddy:cowboy:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Why doesn't anyone her understand that Marriage meens a man and woman. Is it so wrong that people protect THAT, the Meaning? NO HATE, just protecting something that is what it always WAS. 2 men together is not a man and a woman is it? What is wrong with Gays that they want to be exactly the same as a hetro couple but they say they are different? Geeze, quit fighting and slaming hetros and go find an other name for your "Union" and stop telling hetros we hate. It has NOTHING to do with You, it has everything to do with the WORDS- MAN and WOMAN=Marriage.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Sticking to your beliefs is bigotry now?


If you believe that two guys or two girls getting hitched is wrong, and you express that, put on your big boy pants and deal with the backlash from those that disagree with you. Making it against the law for two same sex people to get hitched is bigotry. 



Cornhusker said:


> That's handy when an agenda calls for the suppression of all dissenting opinions and donations.


I reckon if someone tried to outlaw straight marriage you'd try to suppress that opinion and get pretty angry with those who donated to that cause. 




Cornhusker said:


> The hate mongers on the left already outlawed prayer in school





Cornhusker said:


> As long as they keep it "in the closet"?


Nope, kids at my sons high school have prayer sessions on their lunch break. Religion has nothing to do with education and IMO has no business being taught by the state or the government. 



7thswan said:


> Why doesn't anyone her understand that Marriage meens a man and woman. Is it so wrong that people protect THAT, the Meaning? NO HATE, just protecting something that is what it always WAS. 2 men together is not a man and a woman is it? What is wrong with Gays that they want to be exactly the same as a hetro couple but they say they are different? Geeze, quit fighting and slaming hetros and go find an other name for your "Union" and stop telling hetros we hate. It has NOTHING to do with You, it has everything to do with the WORDS- MAN and WOMAN=Marriage.


WRONG! A christian marriage may or may not mean a man and a woman, luckily though Christians don't own the rights to marriage. Stop trying to push your outdated fictional beliefs on other people. If you want to believe in Christianity, The Lord of The Rings, Zombies, or Elves feel free to I don't care, believe or worship whatever you want. When your right to believe and worship stops someone else from doing something that does not hurt or affect you, it becomes bigotry.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Contrary to what you were taught, being gay is NOT mandatory!





JeffreyD said:


> Then it should be really easy for you to prove that gay folks are born that way, so, where's your proof?





homstdr74 said:


> Link to *scientific proof* of the so-called "gay gene", please.


You obviously don't even understand how genetics work. Why don't you provide a peer reviewed scientific study that identifies the hetro gene or allele? Your bigotry and ignorance is quite astounding. Do you start pitching a tent when you see a obese woman? What about when you see your wife wearing your favorite lingerie? Or a voluptuous woman in a bikini? Your attracted to all or one of those woman uncontrollably. Just like a gay guy might be attracted to some other type of man. It is the way it is. If joe and bob get married it doesn't affect any of you in the slightest. 



painterswife said:


> Why is this a "mob" instead of a group of people exercising their free speech?
> 
> Are people protesting wars or court rulings mobs?
> 
> A group of people and employees from around the world took to their computers and voiced an opinion. They did not hound or follow or protest in front of his home.


They are mobs only because they disagree with some of these peoples value systems. Much like the hate people here spew about politically liberal view points.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The hate mongers on the left already outlawed prayer in school


You should thank us for the fact you don't have to worry that your kids will come home from school and tell you that they learned how to pray to Allah today.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Funny, how it is all right to say horrible things on this forum about people based on their political views and sexual orientation but it is not fine to voice your opinions on someone anywhere else or you are a bully and a mob.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Funny, how it is all right to say horrible things on this forum about people based on their political views and sexual orientation but it is not fine to voice your opinions on someone anywhere else or you are a bully and a mob.


What goes around comes around. Heterophobic misogynists/misandrists constantly insult us by calling us bigots because we hold beliefs that go back millions of years, and then think thatâs unfair? Get serious. 

How many attempts at changing human nature will it take before it dawns on those people that their real name is Sisyphus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Funny, how it is all right to say horrible things on this forum about people based on their political views and sexual orientation but it is not fine to voice your opinions on someone anywhere else or you are a bully and a mob.


Can you show me where anyone has said "horrible things" about gays in this thread or forum? Or is this just another case of where if one doesn't toe the approved PC line, he is necessarily vile and evil in all ways?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Can you show me where anyone has said "horrible things" about gays in this thread or forum? Or is this just another case of where if one doesn't toe the approved PC line, he is necessarily vile and evil in all ways?


I should make a list of all the horrible post and point out those people who made them just so you can say that in your opinion they are not horrible? I don't need to justify to you what I believe is horrible. I only have to believe they are.

Now if you want me to discuss your posts only, I am all up for that.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I should make a list of all the horrible post and point out those people who made them just so you can say that in your opinion they are not horrible?* I don't need to justify to you what I believe is horrible. I only have to believe they are.
> *
> Now if you want me to discuss your posts only, I am all up for that.


Re: bold above: simply "believing" that something is so is not reality and is called a delusion. To argue otherwise is simply the folly of "moral relativism" or simple "relativism" and is only interesting insofar as it is an exercise in futility. That is why we have had a little thing called "civilization" for millennia, which is a place where we have an ethical/moral system upon which we all agree.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homstdr74 said:


> Re: bold above: simply "believing" that something is so is not reality and is called a delusion. To argue otherwise is simply the folly of "moral relativism" or simple "relativism" and is only interesting insofar as it is an exercise in futility. That is why we have had a little thing called "civilization" for millennia, which is a place where we have an ethical/moral system upon which we all agree.


I guess that means there is no God then, because simply "believing" that something is so is not reality and is called a delusion.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I guess that means there is no God then, because simply "believing" that something is so is not reality and is called a delusion.


Arguing that or almost any other point with you would indeed be folly since you have freely admitted that simply because you believe that something is so makes it so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homstdr74 said:


> Arguing that or almost any other point with you would indeed be folly since you have freely admitted that simply because you believe that something is so makes it so.


I thought that might be the response.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I thought that might be the response.


And since you believed it, it is true! Can you believe i'll get a check for a $1M today?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I should make a list of all the horrible post and point out those people who made them just so you can say that in your opinion they are not horrible? I don't need to justify to you what I believe is horrible. I only have to believe they are.
> 
> Now if you want me to discuss your posts only, I am all up for that.


Or you can continue to make baseless accusations. Your choice. 

Pointing out actual examples of evil or hate has a chance of combating it. Baseless accusations is an example of evil and hate. See how this works?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Or you can continue to make baseless accusations. Your choice.
> 
> Pointing out actual examples of evil or hate has a chance of combating it. Baseless accusations is an example of evil and hate. See how this works?


I have pointed out lots of hate on this forum. It either goes on unchecked or I get an infraction for pointing it out. Not a trap I will fall into again.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> And since you believed it, it is true! Can you believe i'll get a check for a $1M today?


Is that how it works with believing in God?


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Here is an interesting quote, from outspoke gay rights advocate Andrew Sullivan regarding the OP:



> Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me â as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today â hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else â then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.


http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

(click through to his other posts with caution -- I only checked the page linked above for inappropriate content or language.)


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This country is still a Christ Like country, and that means man and women marry PERIOD. After all the Ten Commandments is still hanging in the Supreme Court hallway.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

FeralFemale said:


> Here is an interesting quote, from outspoke gay rights advocate Andrew Sullivan regarding the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An old college friend sent me this, he was in total agreement with it. He is gay and is planning to marry his longtime partner soon. He told me that to him now is the time to be patient with people as he feels that so much strident activities will only cause the gay community to look intolerant themselves. The rest of the growth should be a more organic process. Knowing and coming to terms with differences will take time.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Ummm, Biblical reference pretty commonly refers to one man and a number of women being married. The one man / one woman = the only type of accepted marriage in the Bible isn't correct. Whatever.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

homstdr74 said:


> Discrimination? "No Irish need apply". "Death to Catholics, who are un-American". "No Jews allowed". "Whites Only". "How many Poles does it take to screw in a light bulb?" etc.
> 
> Did any of those groups do anything similar to this mob? No, they, one and all, made it on their MERIT, not riding on someone's Civil Rights coattail, or begging for sympathy and thriving on pity. Discrimination? Tell us about it.


Sure will.

Apparently you have not heard of the *Civil Rights Act*, which protected *ALL* of those groups. It does not protect the Gays.

The California Gays tried "peaceful protest". It did not work.



> The ballot initiative, which passed 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent Tuesday, overturns a May ruling by the California Supreme Court that struck down a 2000 ban on same-sex unions.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/08/same.sex.protests/index.html?eref=onion

Apparently they want something that does work.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

homstdr74 said:


> So, according to you, "*The notion that being gay is always a choice, is a silly one, IMO and is based on nothing." *Sort of like the notion that homosexuals are all born that way, eh? With no actual scientific knowledge to that effect, how can anyone state categorically that something is absolutely so? While there are physical gender mistakes, I'm certain that there are also some mental gender mistakes that lead to the confusion of some individuals. But that certainly doesn't account for the kids who are being misled into the nonsense of the third sex world by gender confused people who are only into the politics of it for picking them up.


No, some might choose.

Some might be mental also.

Maybe you don't know any gay people, but me personally, I know a number of gays men and women and while they all certainly have the capability to _act_ heterosexual, there is something that tells me, that indeed they would be acting, it they did.

An I have no idea what is in their genetic or physiological chemistry, don't really care.

I really see no point in judging, anyway.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> This country is still a Christ Like country, and that means man and women marry PERIOD. After all the Ten Commandments is still hanging in the Supreme Court hallway.


But wait, those are the Old Testament, nothing to do with Christ. If this is indeed a Christ like country, why no sayings of Christ listed?

Perhaps instead of the Ten Commandments, they should post 

"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have _thy_ cloke also." above the court house...... (that would actually mean we are a "Christ Like' nation....since Christ said that.)

Weird how folks will say the same thing "Christ Like' but mention the Ten Commandments and never fight to get Jesus's actual saying posted...... if the Ten Commandments would apply to "Christ Like' wouldn't the other rules and laws be applicable as well? So long cheeseburger and shrimp cocktail........


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

joseph97297 said:


> But wait, those are the Old Testament, nothing to do with Christ. If this is indeed a Christ like country, why no sayings of Christ listed?
> 
> Perhaps instead of the Ten Commandments, they should post
> 
> ...


Known as "The Great Commandment", Jesus summed up the entire Decalogue thusly:

*"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."*
*&#8212;Matthew 22:35-40*


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> No, some might choose.
> 
> Some might be mental also.
> 
> ...


No, I don't know any homosexuals, and because of this recent furor that they've started which further muddles our Constitutional rights and undermines the basis of family, I don't want to know any. To me, they're just another set of America-bashers, and I'll treat them just the same. 

Don't know what you mean by seeing no point in "judging"....the only ones "judging" others are the ones calling Christians "bigots".


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

7thswan said:


> Why doesn't anyone her understand that Marriage meens a man and woman. Is it so wrong that people protect THAT, the Meaning? NO HATE, just protecting something that is what it always WAS. 2 men together is not a man and a woman is it? What is wrong with Gays that they want to be exactly the same as a hetro couple but they say they are different? Geeze, quit fighting and slaming hetros and go find an other name for your "Union" and stop telling hetros we hate. It has NOTHING to do with You, it has everything to do with the WORDS- MAN and WOMAN=Marriage.


Yes, they should have created a "domestic union" for gay couples. This would also keep the records cleaner, if you are looking at a marriage license you know it was a man/woman, if you are looking at a "domestic union" you know it was a same sex couple. Will make geneology much easier in the future if there is a distinction drawn.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I have pointed out lots of hate on this forum. It either goes on unchecked or I get an infraction for pointing it out. Not a trap I will fall into again.


Or maybe your definition of hate is simply someone with a different opinion as is evident in this thread.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Is that how it works with believing in God?


Have a nice day.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

FeralFemale said:


> Here is an interesting quote, from outspoke gay rights advocate Andrew Sullivan regarding the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure a certain ray of sunshine around here thinks Andrew Sullivan must hate gays since he has that position.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> Yes, they should have created a "domestic union" for gay couples. This would also keep the records cleaner, if you are looking at a marriage license you know it was a man/woman, if you are looking at a "domestic union" you know it was a same sex couple. Will make geneology much easier in the future if there is a distinction drawn.


Ummm...I don't think there will be much genealogy confusion from gay marriages.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> Ummm...I don't think there will be much genealogy confusion from gay marriages.


Names can be confusing. Shannon married Sean, who is who?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

homstdr74 said:


> No, I don't know any homosexuals, and because of this recent furor that they've started which further muddles our Constitutional rights and undermines the basis of family, I don't want to know any. To me, they're just another set of America-bashers, and I'll treat them just the same.
> 
> Don't know what you mean by seeing no point in "judging"....the only ones "judging" others are the ones calling Christians "bigots".


Ironically, you probably know a few and don't even know it because they don't advertise it and are likely very nice people. Every group has it's loud fanatics and it's silent majority.

According to the Oxford (intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself) and Cambridge (a person who has strong unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong) dictionaries the Christian view of homosexuality does indeed meet the definition of bigotry. However, there is a difference in believing what one believes while having intellectual and reasonable discussions on the subject as opposed to vicious verbal or physical attacks on one's opponent. Once you get past the fanatics of any group one is likely to find more or less normal people who are willing to sit down and discuss the subject over a beer or coffee.

I don't agree with the group that Mr Eich contributed to but his contribution shouldn't have cost him his job. Apparently three other employees at Mozilla contributed to the opposing side. Should they also lose their jobs because they chose to express their view with their contribution?


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

homstdr74 said:


> No, I don't know any homosexuals, and because of this recent furor that they've started which further muddles our Constitutional rights and undermines the basis of family,


Please explain how same sex marriage undermines our constitutional rights or the basis of family. A family is nothing more then a group of people with strong emotional bonds that may or may not be related by blood or marriage. Here in the US we practice serial monogamy more so then traditional monogamy, meaning we get divorced and remarried time and time again. If your only real reason for disagreeing with homosexual marriage is the basis of your religion. I am quite sure your church will not conduct a homosexual wedding, I am pretty sure no one will force you to go to a homosexual wedding, therefore NONE of your personal rights are being violated. As it stands now, many homosexual rights are being violated due to the fact they can not legally marry in many areas, for no real reason other then a religious one. 





homstdr74 said:


> I don't want to know any. To me, they're just another set of America-bashers, and I'll treat them just the same. Don't know what you mean by seeing no point in "judging"....the only ones "judging" others are the ones calling Christians "bigots".


When you impose your personal religious views onto others, in this case not letting two same sex people get married, you become a bigot. If you don't like that, then perhaps you should not try to force your will onto other people. Let them love, marry, be happy, and divorce like most heterosexual couples do. 




MO_cows said:


> Yes, they should have created a "domestic union" for gay couples. This would also keep the records cleaner, if you are looking at a marriage license you know it was a man/woman, if you are looking at a "domestic union" you know it was a same sex couple. Will make geneology much easier in the future if there is a distinction drawn.


Oh jeeze:hammer:


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And nice selective quoting on your part. I referred to Mr. Eich's financial well being. He and the other board members made a decision to protect their financial investment in the company. If you agree that all sides have the right to have their opinions heard I'm not sure what the kerfluffle is about other than you don't like the opinion of one side. Maybe your issue should be with the board who may have influenced his decision or even Mr Eich himself who caved to the pressure.


Mozilla is a non-profit. Could you show me what financial investments you are referring to?


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Mike in Ohio said:


> Mozilla is a non-profit. Could you show me what financial investments you are referring to?


http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2012/faq/


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

fishinshawn,

The claim was that Eich and the Board members have financial investments (ownership interest) in Mozilla. The link you provided does nothing to support that point. Non-profits are required to file a form 990 with the IRS.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Mike in Ohio said:


> Mozilla is a non-profit. Could you show me what financial investments you are referring to?


It seems you're partially correct. My reading indicates that the for profit Mozilla Corporation is owned by the not for profit Mozilla Foundation. As both are privately held and I'm not that ambitious right now I can't say exactly what the ownership structure is. I did learn that the company received some $300M in revenues last year, much of that coming from an agreement with Google to put them on top of the search bar. Even the owners and managers of not for profit have financial interests in the success of their organizations. Just because the company or foundation may be tax exempt it doesn't mean that numerous people aren't receiving large compensation packages tied to the performance of that organization. This was the financial interest I referred to. If Mozilla corp. loses market share it generates less income and becomes less valuable to the owners. Many board members have their compensation tied to the value of the company they oversee.


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

Many non-profits have for profit subsidiaries in order to maintain compliance for their non-profit status while engaging in revenue generating activities. I am 100% correct in stating that Eich does not have an ownership interest. Your statement that employees have compensation packages tied to company performance means nothing when the person in question held his position for 10 days. Whether he received compensation for resigning is a different issue. That will come out in their next filing with the IRS.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

The issue of the donation arose several years ago a Eich make statements that were pro diversity. His resignation was hasty but ultimately, it seems that before this came up, his promotion had divided the board and he was actually surprised that he had been chosen over someone else. 

Perhaps, his departure has more to to with internal politics based on a divided board of directors but if not, consumers and users are entitled to state their opinions.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> Names can be confusing. Shannon married Sean, who is who?


If Shannon and Sean are two married gay men, there is not a genealogy issue as to which one of them is the mother of their child. It is no different than Chris and Pat, a hetero couple, having a child. Absent any other info but their names, you can't know which is the mother or father. 

I not arguing for or against gay marriage, I just don't buy the logic, pro or con, of this particular reason.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> If Shannon and Sean are two married gay men, there is not a genealogy issue as to which one of them is the mother of their child. It is no different than Chris and Pat, a hetero couple, having a child. Absent any other info but their names, you can't know which is the mother or father.
> 
> I not arguing for or against gay marriage, I just don't buy the logic, pro or con, of this particular reason.


That certainly wouldn't be an issue in my family. I'm the "keeper of the genealogical records", always have been since no one else has taken the responsibility. Anyway, there would be no reason to record that two bachelors or bachelorettes lived together. The name of the family member would be recorded, but not the fact that he or she had a roommate. Other than there might be rumors in the family for a couple of generations down the road, that would be the end of that story.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Truckinguy said:


> Ironically, you probably know a few and don't even know it because they don't advertise it and are likely very nice people. Every group has it's loud fanatics and it's silent majority.


OK, then why donât I know that? Why is someone deceiving me? I donât like to be lied to, and I resent some coward pretending to be someone they are not. Anyone who is doing something like that is taking advantage of me, and if there are any, Iâd like to know who they are. As soon as I found out, I would simply walk away and weâd never speak again. As I have previously stated, this is a Culture War, and sides have been drawn. You are either on one side or the other. 



> Originally posted by *Truckinguy*:
> According to the Oxford (intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself) and Cambridge (a person who has strong unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong) dictionaries the Christian view of homosexuality does indeed meet the definition of bigotry. However, there is a difference in believing what one believes while having intellectual and reasonable discussions on the subject as opposed to vicious verbal or physical attacks on one's opponent. Once you get past the fanatics of any group one is likely to find more or less normal people who are willing to sit down and discuss the subject over a beer or coffee.


 Why would you even want to discuss something like that? There is absolutely no common ground, and thus the participants would have nothing to discuss but the weather (unless there is now some new definition for sunshine or rain).

I disagree that the definition you supplied 




> â(a person who has strong unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong) dictionaries the Christian view of homosexuality does indeed meet the definition of bigotry)â


is only applicable to one viewpointâin your scenario Christian----but is more properly applicable to those homosexuals who are being unreasonable. Think about it---you canât have it both ways. You canât have unreasonable people trying to change the minds of others by telling them that they are unreasonable bigots, especially if the beliefs of those âbigotsâ are not only personal but historical in their families. This is what Iâm trying to get you to understand: the homosexuals are the ânewbiesâ on the block. They are acting like they can throw their weight around and do what they want and all should fall in line and go along with them. They are like the city dweller who buys a place in the country and starts demanding all the perks and services of city living, uprooting fence lines, cutting down trees on neighboring property, and generally making trouble where previously only peace existed. And yes, their âreasoning âis always that they are correct in all they do. Well, it ainât gonna fly, at least for very long., because somewhere down the road there will be a correction.



> Originally posted by *Truckinguy*:
> I don't agree with the group that Mr Eich contributed to but his contribution shouldn't have cost him his job. Apparently three other employees at Mozilla contributed to the opposing side. Should they also lose their jobs because they chose to express their view with their contribution?


 Yes, they should lose their jobs until his is reinstated.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

fishinshawn said:


> Please explain how same sex marriage undermines our constitutional rights or the basis of family. A family is nothing more then a group of people with strong emotional bonds that may or may not be related by blood or marriage. Here in the US we practice serial monogamy more so then traditional monogamy, meaning we get divorced and remarried time and time again. If your only real reason for disagreeing with homosexual marriage is the basis of your religion. I am quite sure your church will not conduct a homosexual wedding, I am pretty sure no one will force you to go to a homosexual wedding, therefore NONE of your personal rights are being violated. As it stands now, many homosexual rights are being violated due to the fact they can not legally marry in many areas, for no real reason other then a religious one.


Youâre all over the place here. First you attempt to demean the concept of marriage by claiming it to be ânothing more then (sic) a group of people with strong emotional bonds that may or may not be related by blood or marriageâ, then you attempt to belittle marriage further by claiming itâs a sham because of some who practice serial monogamy and are in the media spotlight, and then somehow try to tie all that together to make your main point, which seems to be that homosexuals pretending to be heterosexuals are OK in your book.

The State has no place in the marriage business. Taken seriously, or at least as serious as anyone who sues the âgovernmentâ for having ancillary ties to religion could be, the State should get out of the marriage business immediately. After all, marriage is and has been a longstanding tradition of Christendom (official title of what the State was while still operating under Christian rules) which atheists have pointed out time and time again is directly contrary to the First Amendment (no matter that I think the First Amendment only deals with government interference in religion). Marriage is a religious matter, not a civil matter, and should only be conducted by those Churches that want to conduct them.

All legal documents that have been pointed to as perks of marriage should be brought before tribunals which should determine legislation to correct them all and make such things portable and with the ability to integrate them into partnerships if so desired. It could be and should be done according to law, not vigilantism.



> Originally posted by *fishinshawn*:
> 
> When you impose your personal religious views onto others, in this case not letting two same sex people get married, you become a bigot. If you don't like that, then perhaps you should not try to force your will onto other people. Let them love, marry, be happy, and divorce like most heterosexual couples do.


Iâm not certain who it was who made me into the God you so despise, but I made no such law, nor do I support any law allowing whatever it is that you want to do just because you want to do it.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

homstdr74 said:


> Known as "The Great Commandment", Jesus summed up the entire Decalogue thusly:
> 
> *"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."*
> *âMatthew 22:35-40*



Yes, the Temple 'guard' was trying to trick him into getting in trouble, and a brillant answer it was. But where then, does all the fury over this specific issue come from? 

If these are the two 'laws' clearly stated, then why the anger and worry? You don't see this much ado about cheeseburgers (which is outlawed in the Bible as well) but do see this over gay marriage.

Strange, why aren't the people protesting this over 'religious' issues not protesting divorce, shrimp cocktails, women not wearing long hair or coverings, etc. Why just this issue when they blindly allow the other 'religious' horrors?

Is it about the word marriage? Check out the bible accepted 'marriages' by definition. It is astounding what is considered marriage in the Bible.....


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> This is what Iâm trying to get you to understand: the homosexuals are the ânewbiesâ on the block.


Nope, we've been around forever ... we're just not staying in our closets anymore! 




> After all, marriage is and has been a longstanding tradition of Christendom (official title of what the State was while still operating under Christian rules) which atheists have pointed out time and time again is directly contrary to the First Amendment (no matter that I think the First Amendment only deals with government interference in religion). Marriage is a religious matter, not a civil matter, and should only be conducted by those Churches that want to conduct them.


Study a bit of history, and you will see that marriage has been a civil -- not religious -- tradition here right from the start. Author Nathaniel Philbrick, author of "Mayflower," a history of the Plymouth Colonies, notes that while living among the Dutch, the Pilgrims picked up the custom of civil marriage, and continued to perpetuate it after landing on the shores of the New World. The first marriage recorded in Plymouth was a civil ceremony, not a religious one, and the tradition has persisted to this day.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Nope, we've been around forever ... we're just not staying in our closets anymore!
> 
> 
> 
> Study a bit of history, and you will see that marriage has been a civil -- not religious -- tradition here right from the start. Author Nathaniel Philbrick, author of "Mayflower," a history of the Plymouth Colonies, notes that while living among the Dutch, the Pilgrims picked up the custom of civil marriage, and continued to perpetuate it after landing on the shores of the New World. The first marriage recorded in Plymouth was a civil ceremony, not a religious one, and the tradition has persisted to this day.



Neither here nor there, actually. The fact is that marriage, as a civil term, is and has been established as a Christian term throughout Christendom, which was mostly supplanted by the "democratic" ideals of the Republic back in the day. Civil marriages should be done away with, for political purposes insofar as that would go a long way toward a more civil society, and for religious purposes, insofar as that would take "marriage" out of the realm of the State and put it back where it belongs.

All I'm getting out of your obstinacy about this issue is that you not only want the perks, but you are about being obnoxious toward heterosexuals. Otherwise you would stand up for the revamping of the tax codes and other laws that seem to be so unfair.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homstdr74 said:


> Neither here nor there, actually. The fact is that marriage, as a civil term, is and has been established as a Christian term throughout Christendom, which was mostly supplanted by the "democratic" ideals of the Republic back in the day. Civil marriages should be done away with, for political purposes insofar as that would go a long way toward a more civil society, and for religious purposes, insofar as that would take "marriage" out of the realm of the State and put it back where it belongs.
> 
> All I'm getting out of your obstinacy about this issue is that you not only want the perks, but you are about being obnoxious toward heterosexuals. Otherwise you would stand up for the revamping of the tax codes and other laws that seem to be so unfair.


Marriage is and was a civil contract from the beginning. The Christian church adopted it but has never owned it or controlled it. You can say it all you want but history proves you wrong.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

For those of you decrying the criticism of Mr. Eich, how do you feel about the criticism and call for boycott of Honeymaid graham crackers by the group One Million Moms and others for using same sex families in their ads?


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> For those of you decrying the criticism of Mr. Eich, how do you feel about the criticism and call for boycott of Honeymaid graham crackers by the group One Million Moms and others for using same sex families in their ads?


I don't buy Honeymaid. We buy the knockoff brands. Taste the same. Next.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Marriage is and was a civil contract from the beginning. The Christian church adopted it but has never owned it or controlled it. You can say it all you want but history proves you wrong.


The beginning? Which one? Can you prove what a "beginning" or "end" means? Besides, *OUR* (that means American to those who have no loyalty to anything but their private parts) system of laws stems from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which, as I have explained, is and was Christendom for over a thousand years. I don't know about you, but I tend to trust what has worked for millennia much more than some bunch of guys and gals who all of a sudden say that their way is a better way, so trash all the laws because they "know better" than their elders.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

homstdr74 said:


> I don't buy Honeymaid. We buy the knockoff brands. Taste the same. Next.


And I don't use Mozilla or Firefox on a regular basis. If we're only confined to discussing things we buy or utilize in some way it kind of limits the discussion on broader issues.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And I don't use Mozilla or Firefox on a regular basis. If we're only confined to discussing things we buy or utilize in some way it kind of limits the discussion on broader issues.


But it does personalize things and in some cases makes it easier to see the folly of some issues.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

homstdr74 said:


> But it does personalize things and in some cases makes it easier to see the folly of some issues.


But that personal connection and the emotion connected to it can get in the way of clear and rational thought. I won't presume your thoughts, I was just asking if criticism is only valid if you take sides.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> But that personal connection and the emotion connected to it can get in the way of clear and rational thought. I won't presume your thoughts, I was just asking if criticism is only valid if you take sides.


You should know that there is no such thing as "objectivity"; everyone has some form of bias. In this Culture War thing, there is a clear line drawn, and you are either on one side or the other.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

homstdr74 said:


> You should know that there is no such thing as "objectivity"; everyone has some form of bias. In this Culture War thing, there is a clear line drawn, and you are either on one side or the other.


I see this as a broader question, not necessarily related to the "culture war". Is the threat of economic boycott of a company and using social media to push any agenda a legitimate use of our free speech rights or because it may have some "meanness" as the OP claimed should these things be limited in some way or decried as illegitimate speech in some way? Having this broader discussion is more interesting, to me, than yet another fruitless rehashing of people's personal beliefs on marriage.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I see this as a broader question, not necessarily related to the "culture war". Is the threat of economic boycott of a company and using social media to push any agenda a legitimate use of our free speech rights or because it may have some "meanness" as the OP claimed should these things be limited in some way or decried as illegitimate speech in some way? Having this broader discussion is more interesting, to me, than yet another fruitless rehashing of people's personal beliefs on marriage.


Well of course you'll have to admit that the Culture Wars are the basis of that discussion, and no, the use of economics is not a legitimate use of our free speech rights any more than the use of pornography has anything to do with "free speech". Under the rationale used by the courts to justify such things, anything goes, or, as Justice O'Connor once said, the courts are really making decisions based upon the present-day whims of the public. So, no, not legitimate, but they are doing it anyway.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

homstdr74 said:


> OK, then why donât I know that? Why is someone deceiving me? I donât like to be lied to, and I resent some coward pretending to be someone they are not. Anyone who is doing something like that is taking advantage of me, and if there are any, Iâd like to know who they are. *As soon as I found out, I would simply walk away and weâd never speak again*. As I have previously stated, this is a Culture War, and sides have been drawn. You are either on one side or the other.
> 
> *That above bolded sentence is so sad and rather proves my point.*
> 
> ...



As I said before, I don't agree with Mr. Heim's point of view but he made a political donation and didn't make a big deal about it. His detractors made the issue public and it cost him his job. That was wrong.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

homstdr74 said:


> OK, then why donât I know that? Why is someone deceiving me? I donât like to be lied to, and I resent some coward pretending to be someone they are not. Anyone who is doing something like that is taking advantage of me, and if there are any, Iâd like to know who they are. As soon as I found out, I would simply walk away and weâd never speak again. As I have previously stated, this is a Culture War, and sides have been drawn. You are either on one side or the other.




Hey Painterswife - I've found the hate you were talking about. Wow!

Homstdr - Do I understand you correctly that every homosexual is supposed to walk up to you and identify their orientation to you? Do they need to tell you which is a top or a bottom? 

How about it is none of your business what any couple does in the privacy of their own home? I think you are going to find yourself in a very small minority. While I prefer to see a civil unions sort of thing over marriage, there is no way I can back anything you're saying.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

homstdr74 said:


> Well of course you'll have to admit that the Culture Wars are the basis of that discussion, and no, the use of economics is not a legitimate use of our free speech rights any more than the use of pornography has anything to do with "free speech". Under the rationale used by the courts to justify such things, anything goes, or, as Justice O'Connor once said, the courts are really making decisions based upon the present-day whims of the public. So, no, not legitimate, but they are doing it anyway.


The culture war has been going on for millennia. For most of that time it was easy for one side to ignore or dismiss it as they had overwhelming power. Now that the other side has grown up enough and gained enough strength to fight back in a meaningful way the war is being fought on more even terms. I can understand how limiting free speech is seemingly ok with you as it now doesn't help your agenda. Remember, those same rights you seek to limit because you disagree are the same ones that will be used to limit you when others are in power.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> For those of you decrying the criticism of Mr. Eich, how do you feel about the criticism and call for boycott of Honeymaid graham crackers by the group One Million Moms and others for using same sex families in their ads?


You are getting it wrong. The general tone here has been freedom of speech. Most of us support the right to crit for whatever good or bad reasons a group may have. We also support the right for the other side of an issue to also crit. 

Chik-fil-a was a perfect example. Both sides, do your best. In that case, the side that stood up for allowing someone to have a Christian value won.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

homstdr74 said:


> You should know that there is no such thing as "objectivity"; everyone has some form of bias. In this Culture War thing, there is a clear line drawn, and you are either on one side or the other.


You go to war all you want but count me out of such nonsense. My concern is that one vocal group can use PC vigilantism to persecute others. Other than that, I'm a live and let live kind of guy. As long as I'm not forced in or out of any particular activity by law or mob, I'm pretty much fine.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I see this as a broader question, not necessarily related to the "culture war". Is the threat of economic boycott of a company and using social media to push any agenda a legitimate use of our free speech rights or because it may have some "meanness" as the OP claimed should these things be limited in some way or decried as illegitimate speech in some way? Having this broader discussion is more interesting, to me, than yet another fruitless rehashing of people's personal beliefs on marriage.


Of course it is a legit tactic - even if I didn't agree with the use of it on Mr. Eich. We have a right to free association and a right to free speech and a right to combine the two for economic effect. ANyone who says otherwise completely lacks an understanding of freedom. 

Some Xians don't like the new Noah movie. Without getting into a debate on if they are correct or not, they have a right to object, they have a right to associate with other Xians and decide to not go. To argue otherwise means you believe Xians should be able to be forced to purchase or provide a product or service that violates their principles. Can you say Obamacare?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Of course it is a legit tactic - even if I didn't agree with the use of it on Mr. Eich. We have a right to free association and a right to free speech and a right to combine the two for economic effect. ANyone who says otherwise completely lacks an understanding of freedom.
> 
> Some Xians don't like the new Noah movie. Without getting into a debate on if they are correct or not, they have a right to object, they have a right to associate with other Xians and decide to not go. To argue otherwise means you believe Xians should be able to be forced to purchase or provide a product or service that violates their principles. Can you say Obamacare?


It only took you three posts to conclude the legitimacy of a tactic you referred to as being vigilante in nature. Not exactly a word that connotes open and free discussion. Others in this thread have stated they don't object to gays as long as they conform to some standard of dress and behavior and don't flaunt themselves. At least one poster objects to such settled law as those pertaining to pornography or even the use of speech to influence economic behavior by calling into question their constitutionality. Unless we've been reading different threads I haven't seen much ringing endorsement of freedom of speech.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Free speech, you don't have to like or approve the way people use it. You should respect their right to use it or chance having your right taken away with theirs if we dilute it.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> It only took you three posts to conclude the legitimacy of a tactic you referred to as being vigilante in nature. Not exactly a word that connotes open and free discussion. Others in this thread have stated they don't object to gays as long as they conform to some standard of dress and behavior and don't flaunt themselves. At least one poster objects to such settled law as those pertaining to pornography or even the use of speech to influence economic behavior by calling into question their constitutionality. Unless we've been reading different threads I haven't seen much ringing endorsement of freedom of speech.


You need to put think a little deeper on this. Don't confuse "right" - a civil right or political freedom, with "right" - something that is morally correct. The classic example is the Skokie, IL Nazi march thru a Jewish neighborhood. The SCOTUS confirmed they had the civil right to do something morally wrong. 

Where did I refer anything as vigilante? 

Others have said many things. Why are you including that in this message? Especially when I have publicly distanced myself from at least one of those extremists. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I agree with everything else said by those that don't agree with you. 

As to looking for your free speech issue, you need to reread the thread. You and Willow have tried to make a free speech issue for the pro-gay marriage side. I don't recall that anyone except perhaps one have argued with that point. A few have argued for free speech rights of Mr Eich. What you all are missing is that the prohibition of restrictions of free speech rights applies to the gov't. Mozilla, Mr. Eich, the pro-gay-marriage crowd, and those of us who agree or disagree with the words and deeds of any of those parties have done is exercise free speech. The gov't hasn't done or failed to do anything inappropriate in this case. 

E.g.: Angie can delete this thread for any reason because she is not obligated to honor our free speech rights, that is exercising her free speech rights. The gov't can't shut down the thread because that would be violating our rights. 

I haven't figured out where it is yet, but somewhere there is a line somewhere between us agreeing to protest and boycott the businesses of the Skokie Nazis and showing up at the school bus stop and harassing one of their kids. Some of us here believe that getting Mr Eich fired crossed the line especially since his business had nothing to do with the donation. Should he be denied all future employment because of a political donation?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> For those of you decrying the criticism of Mr. Eich, how do you feel about the criticism and call for boycott of Honeymaid graham crackers by the group One Million Moms and others for using same sex families in their ads?


I was blissfully unaware of it. It's a different deal for a consumer group to call for a boycott than it is for a group of employees to publicly slander their own company's top exec. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

Still think Eich got a raw deal. The group who ganged up on him did their company a huge disservice by airing its laundry on Twitter and should be "pressured to resign" or out and out fired if they violated the confidentiality terms of their employment.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Free speech, you don't have to like or approve the way people use it. You should respect their right to use it or chance having your right taken away with theirs if we dilute it.


I agree, but speech is speech and anything else is not. The Founders didn't fantasize about body parts or positions or lucre replacing the spoken word, and if we want to be true Americans, we should follow the Founders intent. Anything less puts us right back into being controlled by the effeminate court of George III and Lord North.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> The culture war has been going on for millennia. For most of that time it was easy for one side to ignore or dismiss it as they had overwhelming power. Now that the other side has grown up enough and gained enough strength to fight back in a meaningful way the war is being fought on more even terms. I can understand how limiting free speech is seemingly ok with you as it now doesn't help your agenda. Remember, those same rights you seek to limit because you disagree are the same ones that will be used to limit you when others are in power.


Well, you paint a dire scenario that I don't subscribe to at all. In fact, your idea of what constitutes "grown up" talk is completely ridiculous, since they are acting like drunken adolescents. As far as power limiting anything I do, I doubt it......there is now talk among the right to limit the amount of troublemaking employees they are going to hire---of course no one is going to "talk" about it, just do it. After all, who wants to hire someone who will make some sort of damfool political agenda out of everything?


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

homstdr74 said:


> You&#8217;re all over the place here. First you attempt to demean the concept of marriage by claiming it to be &#8220;nothing more then (sic) a group of people with strong emotional bonds that may or may not be related by blood or marriage&#8221;,




Incorrect, I am rather consistent, I said FAMILY, not marriage. 





homstdr74 said:


> then you attempt to belittle marriage further by claiming it&#8217;s a sham because of some who practice serial monogamy and are in the media spotlight,


Some? The practice of serial monogamy is more prevelant now then monogamy. It has nothing to do with anyone being in the spotlight. 





homstdr74 said:


> and then somehow try to tie all that together to make your main point, which seems to be that homosexuals pretending to be heterosexuals are OK in your book.


I would really prefer it if you would just read the words and not attach any other meaning to them. Being able to get married is a birthright, it is not something given to you by god or the government. Homosexuals don't need to pretend to be heterosexual, because your sexuality has no effect on anyone except your chosen partner.





painterswife said:


> Free speech, you don't have to like or approve the way people use it. You should respect their right to use it or chance having your right taken away with theirs if we dilute it.


great post!



DEKE01 said:


> You need to put think a little deeper on this. Don't confuse "right" - a civil right or political freedom, with "right" - something that is morally correct. The classic example is the Skokie, IL Nazi march thru a Jewish neighborhood. The SCOTUS confirmed they had the civil right to do something morally wrong.
> 
> Where did I refer anything as vigilante?
> 
> ...


Morals is a subjective term and one that the various Christian secs can't even agree upon. If you study religion, not just one but all of them, it is possible to discern come common threads in all of them. Religion throughout history has been nothing more then a tool to socialize and control the populace. To give them a reason to obey laws and to act in a controlled and predictable manner. But I digress that subject can go on and on forever. I just wanted to point out that depending upon how you are socialized, you can see things significantly differently from another person and have just as strong of moral conviction. 

Had Mr. Eich been fired, he would have at least some legal standing. He quit though, simply gave up. People may use their free speech however they want, I find it rather odd though that this all came about years after the rather small donation. I think we don't know the whole story....


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

fishinshawn said:


> Incorrect, I am rather consistent, I said FAMILY, not marriage.
> 
> [/FONT][/SIZE]
> Some? The practice of serial monogamy is more prevelant now then monogamy. It has nothing to do with anyone being in the spotlight.
> ...




I don't respond to insults.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Free speech, you don't have to like or approve the way people use it. You should respect their right to use it or chance having your right taken away with theirs if we dilute it.


Now why don't you agree with this when it comes to other 1st amendment rights? Selective much?

:hrm:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vash said:


> Now why don't you agree with this when it comes to other 1st amendment rights? Selective much?
> 
> :hrm:


Different situation completely. No laws broken here.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Different situation completely. No laws broken here.


Oh, I see. No matter how harmful the speech is you're OK with it as long as no laws are broken...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vash said:


> Oh, I see. No matter how harmful the speech is you're OK with it as long as no laws are broken...


Did I say that or did you just assume that? I made my position very clear in other posts.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Did I say that or did you just assume that? I made my position very clear in other posts.


Something in your post about respecting people's right to free speech. Does that not apply to Religion, Press or Assembly?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vash said:


> Something in your post about respecting people's right to free speech. Does that not apply to Religion, Press or Assembly?


Dig a little further.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Dig a little further.


Yeah, I did. It's VERY obvious where you stand on religion...


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Vash said:


> Something in your post about respecting people's right to free speech. Does that not apply to Religion, Press or Assembly?


It absolutely does, but there is a difference between free speech and bigotry. Making laws that exclude people from doing something simply because it is against one religious viewpoint, and not because it actually harms or affects anyone is bigotry.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

_



Originally posted by *Truckinguy*:
*That's a pretty naive point of view. You don't know everything about your neighbors. Do you assume your neighbors only have heterosexual missionary position sex? Do they wear bunny costumes or swing from the chandelier? Would that make a difference to you if your neighbor told you that? Aside from those who are flamboyantly gay, you can't tell if someone you're talking to is gay. Your hair won't catch on fire if you walk too close to a gay person and you won't get gay cooties on you if you hug them. If you had a neighbor that you got along well with and considered a friend, would you really cut them out of your life if you found out they were gay? Gay people don't have a neon sign on their forehead saying "I'm Gay!", they are normal everyday people like the rest of us. They are exactly the same as you and I except for the one they choose to love.*

Click to expand...

_Of course I donât know anything about my neighbors. I DONâT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THEM OR THEIR SEXUAL PROCLIVITIES. The only people who would even think of such a thing are perverts. Besides, Iâm a *HOMESTEADER*, not an urban person, and I donât have any neighbors---the closest house to us is Â½ mile off, and the quite elderly gentleman who lives there with his wife was and still is a preacher. We get along and help each other, but, as I stated, we are RURAL *HOMESTEADERS* not urban political fanatics, snoops and gossiping idiots.

_



Originally posted by *Truckinguy*:
Why would you even want to discuss something like that? There is absolutely no common ground, and thus the participants would have nothing to discuss but the weather (unless there is now some new definition for sunshine or rain).
*Rational, mature people are able to discuss difficult subjects in the hope that tolerance, compassion and love can be found in a situation rather than, hatred, judgement and divisiveness.*

Click to expand...

_I donât know, kid, your concept of âtolerance, compassion and loveâ (if it includes sexuality) is juvenile. Adults donât discuss sex; there are too many more important subjects to talk about; as Jeff Foxworthy says: âGetting married for sex is like buying a 707 for the free peanutsâ.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> You need to put think a little deeper on this. Don't confuse "right" - a civil right or political freedom, with "right" - something that is morally correct. The classic example is the Skokie, IL Nazi march thru a Jewish neighborhood. The SCOTUS confirmed they had the civil right to do something morally wrong.
> 
> Where did I refer anything as vigilante?
> 
> ...


Maybe it was your use of the term "PC vigilantism" that confused me. I'm fully aware of the difference between having a right and doing right. One is absolute and one is relative. There seem to be more than few here who would seek to limit someone's' right to speech because they don't think what they're speaking about is right.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> You need to put think a little deeper on this. Don't confuse "right" - a civil right or political freedom, with "right" - something that is morally correct. The classic example is the Skokie, IL Nazi march thru a Jewish neighborhood. The SCOTUS confirmed they had the civil right to do something morally wrong.
> 
> Where did I refer anything as vigilante?
> 
> ...


Actually, after some research into this incident, I found that Eich's forced resignation is a direct result of a government action. The law states that any donations above $150 must socument and record the donor's name, what they donated for (in this case, support of Prop 8), the company the donor works for or owns, etc. Calif law dictates that this must be published, which the Sec of state of CA did online. 

Those lists were used to intimidate donors -- on both sides of the issue. Some folks had death threats, even. I didn't get much further in my research due to time constraints, but Justice Thomas has a good synopsis of what happened with the Prop 8 lists, as well as other circumstances where free speech was chilled, in his concurring opinion in the Citizen's United case. It's worth the read if you are intereseted -- and, judging by your reasonable responses on this thread, I bet you would be. His opinion certainly made me rethink a few things on this topic.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Thomas's concurring opinion starts on page 178.

Now of course, SCOTUS found that such lists do not inhibit free speech, but I thought Thomas made a compelling argument.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> There seem to be more than few here who would seek to limit someone's' right to speech because they don't think what they're speaking about is right.


You mean like the people who would hound a man out of his job because he doesn't agree with their politics?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> You mean like the people who would hound a man out of his job because he doesn't agree with their politics?


He exercised his right. They exercised theirs. Care to expound more on the meaning of PC vigilantism?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> He exercised his right. They exercised theirs. Care to expound more on the meaning of PC vigilantism?


OKCupid incites the crowd and refuses to do business with and encourages others not to do business with a corporation because of a political stance of the CEO of the corporation, not anything that the corporation has done. 

How would you feel if Microsoft and Cysco banded together and decided to use their market power to bully OKCupid out of business since the CEO of OKC is pro-gay? In both cases, the actions are wrong. In both cases it would be a 1A exercise.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> There seem to be more than few here who would seek to limit someone's' right to speech because they don't think what they're speaking about is right.


Who? Where? I've seen no calls for gov't action. Why aren't you defending the right of those who take offense on both sides of this issue.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> OKCupid incites the crowd and refuses to do business with and encourages others not to do business with a corporation because of a political stance of the CEO of the corporation, not anything that the corporation has done.
> 
> How would you feel if Microsoft and Cysco banded together and decided to use their market power to bully OKCupid out of business since the CEO of OKC is pro-gay? In both cases, the actions are wrong. In both cases it would be a 1A exercise.


That might depend on what actions were taken and whether they might have violated anti trust laws. We have one poster here who has talked about having his tech people find an alternative to Firefox. Are he and others guilty of their own brand of vigilantism if enough financial damage is caused to get Mozilla to alter their behavior? Is it good vigilantism because you may agree with their stance?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Who? Where? I've seen no calls for gov't action. Why aren't you defending the right of those who take offense on both sides of this issue.


I guess the poster who's been calling for a stricter constitutional reading on what is speech doesn't count. I haven't called for the government to restrict anyone's right to speak on this or any other matter. All I've really done is ask the question why it is so wrong that exercising one's right to free speech might have negative consequences. A question no one can seem to answer.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I guess the poster who's been calling for a stricter constitutional reading on what is speech doesn't count. I haven't called for the government to restrict anyone's right to speak on this or any other matter. All I've really done is ask the question why it is so wrong that exercising one's right to free speech might have negative consequences. A question no one can seem to answer.


"I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in "core political speech, the âprimary object of First Amendment protection.â"" -- Justice Clarence Thomas.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I guess the poster who's been calling for a stricter constitutional reading on what is speech doesn't count. I haven't called for the government to restrict anyone's right to speak on this or any other matter. All I've really done is ask the question why it is so wrong that exercising one's right to free speech might have negative consequences. A question no one can seem to answer.


I've answered that q several times and I believe others have as well.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> "I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in "core political speech, the âprimary object of First Amendment protection.â"" -- Justice Clarence Thomas.


Should someone who uses their money as speech to promote a political campaign to pass a law, which in this case has been ruled by the same court Justice Thomas sits on to be in violation of the Constitution, be above criticism? I don't disagree that the outcome for Mr Eich has been unfortunate and I would agree unwarranted. But I also don't feel that there should be any guarantees in life that exercising one's right to free speech comes with a promise that there will be no negative consequence.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

homstdr74 said:


> Of course I donât know anything about my neighbors. I DONâT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THEM OR THEIR SEXUAL PROCLIVITIES. The only people who would even think of such a thing are perverts. Besides, Iâm a *HOMESTEADER*, not an urban person, and I donât have any neighbors---the closest house to us is Â½ mile off, and the quite elderly gentleman who lives there with his wife was and still is a preacher. We get along and help each other, but, as I stated, we are RURAL *HOMESTEADERS* not urban political fanatics, snoops and gossiping idiots.
> 
> 
> I donât know, kid, your concept of âtolerance, compassion and loveâ (if it includes sexuality) is juvenile. *Adults donât discuss sex*; *(you just continue to make jaw dropping comments, don't you?*) there are too many more important subjects to talk about; as Jeff Foxworthy says: âGetting married for sex is like buying a 707 for the free peanutsâ.


The point isn't discussing sex, it was "difficult subjects" which you may have missed in my comment _*(Rational, mature people are able to discuss difficult subjects in the hope that tolerance, compassion and love can be found in a situation rather than, hatred, judgement and divisiveness.*_). Difficult subjects can be relationships, politics, religion, sex (Yes, sex, imagine!), world events or anything else under the sun. I only brought up sex as that is the only difference between "them" and "us". Otherwise, gay people are exactly like everyone else, they have feelings, they buy cars and houses, they work, they vote, they will help you move and they make great friends, neighbors and family members.

My sister is gay. When she came out to my father he was not happy about it and told her he was disappointed. She was very badly hurt by his comments but within a short time he accepted her partner into the family with as much love as a family member and my sister and my Dad had a very close relationship until he died last year. He was a Christian man and we knew his view on the subject but he chose to love all of us without judgement. That, Kid, is what maturity is all about. Your notion of never speaking to someone again upon their revealing that they are gay is sad and, frankly, the epitome of juvenile, however, I have to respect your right to act that way. You would really be depriving yourself of the company of some great people, though!

There is a difference in two people discussing a subject based on their points of view on said subject and someone being ostracized and belittled because of their stand on a subject. The former is mature, the latter is juvenile.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> "I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in "core political speech, the âprimary object of First Amendment protection.â"" -- Justice Clarence Thomas.


My interpretation of the Constitution is that it protects citizens from _government_ repression of or retribution for political speech. Nowhere do I see that it promises there will be no censure from fellow citizens. (Death threats, physical harm and vandalism obviously are crimes and ought to be treated as such.)


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> My interpretation of the Constitution is that it protects citizens from _government_ repression of or retribution for political speech. Nowhere do I see that it promises there will be no censure from fellow citizens. (Death threats, physical harm and vandalism obviously are crimes and ought to be treated as such.)


It protects us from government action, which is what a campaign reporting law is -- which is the direct cause of the threats, intimidation, etc. I would agree with you on something like the duck dynasty situation, but, in this instance, goverment action was, indeed, the cause of this harm.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> It protects us from government action, which is what a campaign reporting law is -- which is the direct cause of the threats, intimidation, etc. I would agree with you on something like the duck dynasty situation, but, in this instance, goverment action was, indeed, the cause of this harm.


No, the cause of the harm was people overreacting to Mr Eich's donation and Mr Eich and Mozilla overreacting to that overreaction. I understand the argument that without the disclosure laws no one would have known of the donation and none of this would have happened. Personally it worries me more that we might someday live in a world where speech can be used on a massive level without consequence through unlimited anonymous campaign donations than that I or others might have to stand up and defend our speech(donations) and suffer the possible negative consequences.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It protects us from government action, which is what a campaign reporting law is -- which is the direct cause of the threats, intimidation, etc. I would agree with you on something like the duck dynasty situation, but, in this instance, goverment action was, indeed, the cause of this harm.


Let's read the 1A again, shall we?


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Campaign disclosure laws in no way _prohibit_ free speech. I acknowledge it's possible they may _inhibit_ it, if people know they may be held accountable for what they say, but accountability is generally a good thing, isn't it?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

This thread includes "meanness" in its title. I'll go back to my Ted Nugent example in an effort to get away from focusing on gay marriage. Ted Nugent is an unabashed carnivore. Is the group that invites him to play at and promote their wild game feed nicer than the group that specifically doesn't invite him to play at their vegitarian food festival? Are the vegitarians being mean and denying The Motor City Madman an opportunity to earn a living? Or are both groups doing what they feel is best?


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Truckinguy said:


> The point isn't discussing sex, it was "difficult subjects" which you may have missed in my comment _(Rational, mature people are able to discuss difficult subjects in the hope that tolerance, compassion and love can be found in a situation rather than, hatred, judgement and divisiveness._). Difficult subjects can be relationships, politics, religion, sex (Yes, sex, imagine!), world events or anything else under the sun. I only brought up sex as that is the only difference between "them" and "us". Otherwise, gay people are exactly like everyone else, they have feelings, they buy cars and houses, they work, they vote, they will help you move and they make great friends, neighbors and family members.
> 
> My sister is gay. When she came out to my father he was not happy about it and told her he was disappointed. She was very badly hurt by his comments but within a short time he accepted her partner into the family with as much love as a family member and my sister and my Dad had a very close relationship until he died last year. He was a Christian man and we knew his view on the subject but he chose to love all of us without judgement. That, Kid, is what maturity is all about. Your notion of never speaking to someone again upon their revealing that they are gay is sad and, frankly, the epitome of juvenile, however, I have to respect your right to act that way. You would really be depriving yourself of the company of some great people, though!
> 
> *There is a difference in two people discussing a subject based on their points of view on said subject and someone being ostracized and belittled because of their stand on a subject. The former is mature, the latter is juvenile*.


There certainly is, and you epitomize the latter. As I have stated many times, and you may not like it but it&#8217;s a fact, there are two distinct sides in this Culture War. You&#8217;re on one side and I am on the other, you say that you &#8220;respect&#8221; my right to act that way, but you don&#8217;t.

So let&#8217;s put this into perspective---MY perspective. What in the H is something like this doing on a HOMESTEADING forum? Are you intending to raise a herd of homosexuals? What? I see nothing practical at all about this subject and therefore nothing applicable to anything concerning farm life. Rural life is all about life and the procreation process, whereas the &#8220;third sex&#8221; subject is not only impractical but has no real future.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

When people with whom I agree say something and get in trouble for it in the marketplace, I like to say that they have been unfairly ground beneath the wheels of the unending juggernaut of the machine that political correctness has become.

When people with whom I disagree say something and get in trouble for it in the marketplace, I like to say that they have shown their true contemptible colors and have been justly rebuked.

The marketplace seems to be a fickle beast.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So letâs put this into perspective---MY perspective. What in the H is something like this doing on a HOMESTEADING forum?


I see you're new here, so perhaps it's necessary to point out that this subforum is called "General Chat," in which we discuss anything and everything, within the bounds of the board's terms of use, of course. Pull up a chair! 

(BTW, you might want to review the board rules regarding cuss words, or substitutions for such, before you get your A in a sling.) ound:



> I see nothing practical at all about this subject and therefore nothing applicable to anything concerning farm life. Rural life is all about life and the procreation process, whereas the âthird sexâ subject is not only impractical but has no real future.


Plenty of LGBT people, myself included, have bred livestock for fun and money. And you do realize that homosexuality is not synonymous with sterility, right? Gestational carriers, sperm donors, adoption, etc., have made it possible for gay couples (and some heterosexual ones) to be parents. This is the 21st century, you know! :sing:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> This is the 21st century, you know!
> [/SIZE][/FONT]


 That doesn't change the fact it is not the Christian thing to do in a Christ Like Nation. So what if it is the 21st Century that in no way change things that Marriage is between One Women and One Man.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I see you're new here, so perhaps it's necessary to point out that this subforum is called "General Chat," in which we discuss anything and everything, within the bounds of the board's terms of use, of course. Pull up a chair!
> 
> (BTW, you might want to review the board rules regarding cuss words, or substitutions for such, before you get your A in a sling.) ound:
> 
> ...


But what does that have to do with 93,000,000 Americans out of work, and the Debt to GDP ratio now at 101%? How does homosexual marriage help all those people become equal? Maybe it makes some sense to some people, but it looks to me like Nero is still fiddling around while Rome burns, and still blaming the Christians.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> But what does that have to do with 93,000,000 Americans out of work, and the Debt to GDP ratio now at 101%? How does homosexual marriage help all those people become equal?


Someone might have said the same thing about the civil rights movement a couple of decades ago. 

Here are my thoughts on the subject: When this nation was founded, the founders put forth a premise that "all men are created equal" and thus are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Ironically, they themselves didn't believe that -- essentially, they meant "all white Anglo-Saxon dudes are created equal." However, it wasn't long before someone who wasn't a white Anglo-Saxon dude grabbed the ball and ran with it, and the game continues to this day. One group after another -- blacks, women, Native Americans, etc. -- all have demanded, and won, a seat at the table. Now it is the LGBT community's turn. A wiser man than me put it this way, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Someone might have said the same thing about the civil rights movement a couple of decades ago.
> 
> Here are my thoughts on the subject: When this nation was founded, the founders put forth a premise that "all men are created equal" and thus are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Ironically, they themselves didn't believe that -- essentially, they meant "all white Anglo-Saxon dudes are created equal." However, it wasn't long before someone who wasn't a white Anglo-Saxon dude grabbed the ball and ran with it, and the game continues to this day. One group after another -- blacks, women, Native Americans, etc. -- all have demanded, and won, a seat at the table. Now it is the LGBT community's turn. A wiser man than me put it this way, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."


"All's fair in love and war", so next we'll seek justice for heterosexuals.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

There is rarely justice in romance.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That doesn't change the fact it is not the Christian thing to do in a Christ Like Nation. So what if it is the 21st Century that in no way change things that Marriage is between One Women and One Man.


Arabian Knight, the heterosexual community seems awfully concerned over the fact that the children of gay couples have two parents of the same sex, but where is the concern over the fact that 40 percent of births in this country are to single women? Most, I presume, are heterosexuals, as only about 3 percent of the population is gay, and of that 3 percent, only a quarter have children. 

So the vast majority of kids lacking both a mother and a father in the home are not the children of gay couples; they're the offspring of single heterosexual women!

Perhaps after the heterosexuals have taken care of this little problem (maybe you guys need to start marrying the mothers of your kids? eh?) you'll have a shred more credibility in addressing the supposed problems of LGBT parenthood.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Oggie said:


> There is rarely justice in romance.


Excellent comment.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Arabian Knight, the heterosexual community seems awfully concerned over the fact that the children of gay couples have two parents of the same sex, but where is the concern over the fact that 40 percent of births in this country are to single women? Most, I presume, are heterosexuals, as only about 3 percent of the population is gay, and of that 3 percent, only a quarter have children.
> 
> So the vast majority of kids lacking both a mother and a father in the home are not the children of gay couples; they're the offspring of single heterosexual women!
> 
> Perhaps after the heterosexuals have taken care of this little problem (maybe you guys need to start marrying the mothers of your kids? eh?) you'll have a shred more credibility in addressing the supposed problems of LGBT parenthood.


http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2...omosexual-parents-turn-out-the-best-evidence/

And to quell any fears that I have overlooked something, yes, many of us could do a better job of parenting. That doesn't mean that because there are some problems we should make them any worse than they already are.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> Someone might have said the same thing about the civil rights movement a couple of decades ago.
> 
> Here are my thoughts on the subject: When this nation was founded, the founders put forth a premise that "all men are created equal" and thus are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Ironically, they themselves didn't believe that -- essentially, they meant "all white Anglo-Saxon dudes are created equal." However, it wasn't long before someone who wasn't a white Anglo-Saxon dude grabbed the ball and ran with it, and the game continues to this day. One group after another -- blacks, women, Native Americans, etc. -- all have demanded, and won, a seat at the table. Now it is the LGBT community's turn. A wiser man than me put it this way, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."


I really wanted to LIKE this post more than once!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

homstdr74 said:


> There certainly is, and you epitomize the latter. As I have stated many times, and you may not like it but itâs a fact, there are two distinct sides in this Culture War. Youâre on one side and I am on the other, you say that you ârespectâ my right to act that way, but you donât.
> 
> *So letâs put this into perspective---MY perspective. What in the H is something like this doing on a HOMESTEADING forum? Are you intending to raise a herd of homosexuals? What? I see nothing practical at all about this subject and therefore nothing applicable to anything concerning farm life. Rural life is all about life and the procreation process, whereas the âthird sexâ subject is not only impractical but has no real future.*


Just because it's your perspective doesn't mean your perspective is the only correct one.

As to the discussion - it's the General Chat forum. That means general discussions about all sorts of things including controversial subjects but nobody is forcing you to participate in general discussions and it's not necessary for you to try to control the subject matter discussed. So if you find some of the topics in General Chat are disagreeable to your mindset or don't fit in with your personal perspective of what a homesteading forum should be about then there's an easy solution - just don't respond to them. Maybe you should stick to posting on the other homesteading forums that will afford you more peace of mind. There are many other forums to choose from here on HT that are concerning farm life and ought not to be offensive to your personal sensitivities about human society. Presumably it will be easier for you to remain civil, calm and polite to other people on those forums where you're just talking about farm life.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

TheMartianChick said:


> I really wanted to LIKE this post more than once!


Due to my politics, I can't like willow's post this time. But I sure wish I could issue multiple UNLIKEs to a certain homesteader. On both sides of this issue, there is way too much demonizing of all those haters, bigots, and evil people on the other side such that when the real thing comes along, there is nothing left to say that has real meaning.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Just because it's your perspective doesn't mean your perspective is the only correct one.
> 
> As to the discussion - it's the General Chat forum. That means general discussions about all sorts of things including controversial subjects but nobody is forcing you to participate in general discussions and it's not necessary for you to try to control the subject matter discussed. So if you find some of the topics in General Chat are disagreeable to your mindset or don't fit in with your personal perspective of what a homesteading forum should be about then there's an easy solution - just don't respond to them. Maybe you should stick to posting on the other homesteading forums that will afford you more peace of mind. There are many other forums to choose from here on HT that are concerning farm life and ought not to be offensive to your personal sensitivities about human society. Presumably it will be easier for you to remain civil, calm and polite to other people on those forums where you're just talking about farm life.


Maybe you should start a petition to redress your grievances about the topic of this entire forum, which is called *Homesteading *Today. You could get the Justice Department to develop an entire new set of rules about what rural life is, and claim that those who actually work the land are guilty of hate crimes!! Think of the possibilities!!

Oh, and BTW: You're not the moderator.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

homstdr74 said:


> Maybe you should start a petition to redress your grievances about the topic of this entire forum, which is called *Homesteading *Today. You could get the Justice Department to develop an entire new set of rules about what rural life is, and claim that those who actually work the land are guilty of hate crimes!! Think of the possibilities!!
> 
> Oh, and BTW: You're not the moderator.



The moderators have allowed the thread to remain open and continuing discussion because it is a relevant topic.

Not all topics in GC are homesteading related but there are many options available that may be more relevant to your needs.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

For those who may find the topic of this particular thread distressing to their perception of what should or should not be discussed, just don't open it anymore and read topics of interest on the other 40 + boards hosted here on HT.

No General Chat is not "homesteading" centered because homesteaders don't wear blinders as draft animals and often have thought on and discuss topics not directly related to working on the farm or homestead.

Topics on all boards hosted here drift at times. GC is simply one of the boards that have the least connection to agricultural or rural living aspects.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Shrek said:


> For those who may find the topic of this particular thread distressing to their perception of what should or should not be discussed, just don't open it anymore and read topics of interest on the other 40 + boards hosted here on HT.
> 
> No General Chat is not "homesteading" centered because homesteaders don't wear blinders as draft animals and often have thought on and discuss topics not directly related to working on the farm or homestead.
> 
> Topics on all boards hosted here drift at times. GC is simply one of the boards that have the least connection to agricultural or rural living aspects.


Never fear---I've already asked Angie to delete my account.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

homstdr74 said:


> There certainly is, and you epitomize the latter. As I have stated many times, and you may not like it but itâs a fact, there are two distinct sides in this Culture War. Youâre on one side and I am on the other, you say that you ârespectâ my right to act that way, but you donât.
> 
> So letâs put this into perspective---MY perspective. What in the H is something like this doing on a HOMESTEADING forum? *Are you intending to raise a herd of homosexuals?* What? I see nothing practical at all about this subject and therefore nothing applicable to anything concerning farm life. Rural life is all about life and the procreation process, whereas the âthird sexâ subject is not only impractical but has no real future.


Actually, I already socialize with a "herd of homosexuals (actually mostly lesbians)" and you would have to look pretty far to find a funnier, more generous and inclusive group of people anywhere. :happy2:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I think the preferred term is hoi polloi of homosexuals.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> That doesn't change the fact it is not the Christian thing to do in a Christ Like Nation. So what if it is the 21st Century that in no way change things that *Marriage is between One Women and One Man*.


I'm going to throw the Bovine Excrement flag on this one....

the bible defines marriage as the following:

I erased one as it is insensitive to some people...........


















So, are you for all those other 'definitions'???? They clearly show that marriage, as defined by the Bible and therefore would apply to 'Christ Like' folk is not solely a one man and a one woman issue.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I think the preferred term is hoi polloi of homosexuals.


Actually, I think it's called a "Pride" of homosexuals...


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

How about a "lick" of lesbians? ound:


----------

