New Mozilla CEO - Anti Prop 8

I switched to Firefox a few months back not because of this guy or any political or ideological shit. I switched because IE kept trying to force me to switch to 11 (and could downgrade to 10) and it sucked ass. and it was free.

I'd have switched to Chrome if I had remembered it was around and they didn't tell the NSA every little detail about you.

I don't give a shit about this guys view on prop 8 or gay marriage or his opinion on any f@ckin' thing. He's not my friend, family or a dude with any real impact on my life.

Meh? Nah, double Meh.

 

compare

by that logic, the right to free expression of religion is not a right. the right to free speech is not a right. the right to bear arms is not a right. all of these have restrictions on them due to the necessities of interacting in a complex society.

from a practical standpoint, that maybe would have been the easiest path, and i appreciate the idea. problem is that every constitution, law and regulation in the country that relates to how non-religious civil unions are treated uses the word "marriage". you can't just do a find/replace on all of that law. it all has to be changed through the political process. completely untenable. so... you redefine marriage in the civil context. the religious groups will always have the right to determine who is married in their eyes and who participates in their group in what ways.

the civil union thing is essentially "separate, but equal" in the eyes of many gay rights' activists. of course, as Mr. Acree points out, no civil rights group is ever monolithic. Malcolm X and MLK didn't see eye to eye on many things...

agreed. as above, religious groups will be able to define their membership however they want. many of them do not allow women as leaders, for example. clearly not "equality" as we understand it in a civil context, but that's their right.

yep. but that's not all the fight is about. make no mistake, this is a civil rights fight. it is about universal equal rights under the law.

true. not fringe. but supported state sponsored discrimination, and he's reaping some political backlash.

 

Fuck who you want to fuck. Love who you want to love. Marry who you want to marry. Makes absolutely no difference to me. In fact I support your right to do so. Just don't tell me how I am supposed to think or believe and then try and punish me if I think or believe differently than you do. IE support my right to think and believe how I want to think and believe. Funny thing about extreme activism. You force your opinion down someone's throat and after awhile they start to question why they supported your cause in the first place.

 

^^^This x 1,000,000,000

In your face may get you what you ask for, but it does not win acceptance or good will. The evangelicals of all stripes need to consider this.

 

Sweatypants hit the main points before I got a chance to respond, and probably more eloquently than I would have.

Until states and governments get out of the business of declaring people married, granting or withholding benefits based on that distinction, and ending marriages, the argument that it is a religious institution will remain a tough one to defend.

 

I personally have zero issues with gay marriage. I do have a problem with the shrill histrionics that ensue whenever someone dares air an opposing viewpoint. Respectfully supporting your own religious beliefs should not give rise to demands that you lose your livelihood. Civil discourse will do a much better job of reconciling differing viewpoints.

 

here's the difference though... the average person can't help let those personal religious beliefs seep into other facets of their lives and how they make decisions (in general terms). and not to turn this into anything political in the sense of Bush or Obama or whoever... but as soon as you hear a man like Bush who is in a position of great power to affect the lives of people from different faiths and backgrounds of his own, reference his faith (even in passing), you have poisoned the well of impartial logic in your decision making. with respects to making a decision that may affect thousands of lives (like going to Iraq), or another politician voting on gay marriage, you know its there lingering in the background, and now it has affected and skewed the logic of the situation. whether you believe something or not, is your own perrogative, and you should be able to act accordingly. its when that same person becomes a figurehead (like a large public company's CEO or a politician) with great power and influence, that they are now corrupted by their own personal resolve.

you're a congressman... you don't think dudes should be married cause its yucky and you and your plain wife only do it missionary position on the 3rd friday of the month with the lights off, cause mystical sky jesus said so... so be it. live your life. but when you walk into congress and then vote a bill down pertaining to that and get on the news and say "my faith told me it was the right thing", you've now broken the separation of church and state that is fundamental to anyone else who doesn't live like you getting their fair shake. its human nature to let your upbringing and experiences and convictions mold you and how you respond to situations every day. so while i don't blame them... i still think, you've been granted a position of importance and influence, you should fight those urges and only be able to use logic and deductive reasoning and be as impartial as possible.

if a nobody supports their own views in their daily life, who cares, good for you... that's the difference you're missing though, these people are in positions to influence the lives of others, either thru money or power positioning. maybe they shouldn't have that luxury any more to "respectfully support their own religious beliefs" any more.

 

Your beliefs mold all of your thoughts and actions. Does it make any difference how you arrive at those beliefs? A gay secular humanist in political office is still going to vote his own convictions. If those convictions don't correspond with those of the majority of his constituency, he will no longer be around to exercise his political will.

 

Actually, I think it does. If you arrived at your beliefs on your own, they might change at some point down the road if people or circumstances convince you that you used to be wrong. If they were given to you by a book dropped out of the sky, they are set in stone.

 

Not changing your mind does not mean you haven't considered other points of view.

 

Nigel - that is incorrect. as why sometimes you hear of people doing "what's right" logically speaking, outside of or regardless to how they actually feel bout a topic. i know its rare sometimes, but its possible. its called stepping outside of yourself. kinda how you can always give a friend the best dating/life/financial/career advice because you're not emotionally invested. what you're implying says that nobody is able to think logically and acts as a robot who's been programmed without any deviation. which also implies that nobody is ever able to evolve, change, learn something new after a certain point, become enlightened, etc... which is a proposterous idea.

and on the flip side of that coin, its the same reason you'll see politicians be furvently against something like abortion or gay marriage until their daughter gets raped and winds up pregnant, or their star football player son comes out of the closet... then its "ohhhhh... i looked deep within myself and had a change of heart. i've grown over the years and my perspective has grown with me." yea... right. its called, you were selfish and didn't consider others until you had to and looked beyond "yourself".

like general (grant??? i don't remember exactly which one) in the civil war who was noted as treating freed slaves with dignity and respect on his march thru Georgia, even if he did not see them as his "social/developed equals" and didn't fancy himself as leading them on some exodus out of the south like some quasi-Moses.

 

I didn't say does.

But what good is the process anyway, since the correct point of view is given to you by a divine source?

 

Inflexibility is not limited to one side or the other.

 

Not necessarily.

 

So, what you're saying is that, if you harbor religious beliefs, your opinions of how society should operate cannot have any validity?

 

Again, not something I said.

However, one side is inflexible by requirement. The other may or may not be inflexible depending on the individual.

 

That can't be addressed to me. That would be beyond stupid. Who are you talking to?

 

That must be why everyone waits to see what a new Pope brings to the table in terms of doctrine.

 

Change is not indicative of inflexible. I'm not Catholic, so the finer points of Popedom are somewhat lost on me.