-

Oh I understand completely what YOU are trying to do, stop lumping others in here.

If YOU made a private donation to a cause that YOU believed in when the law stated that it was private and people who wanted that exposed voted to change the law so they could use it against YOU. I am certain that YOU would think it was wrong to do so. He probably would not have made the donation if he thought is was public, I do not know the answer to that one, you will have to ask him.

I stated that he should not lose his job over it. Nothing more. You sound just like most other bullies in the schoolyard trying to pick a fight. Again, I ain't taking your bait....go fish somewhere else.

If the word marriage belongs to god, then legally we need to change 'marriage' contracts to say something else, and adjust tax laws and everything marriage related to use the new term.

I'm fine with making marriage a religious term. I respect everyone's right to their own beliefs. I don't agree with inequality in laws and how people are treated just because of a term. 

Damn, 7 pages ?!?

I read the first 2.5 pages and saw all David's posts deleted.

What did I miss?

For the record, if marriage is a religious term, the government (with it supposed separation of state and church) needs to find another term.

I'm just waiting for Daniel to get back from holiday to close and delete this thread as it falls pretty squarely into both political & religious territory.  The only way it could get more heated is if we threw some sports smack talk into the mix.

Because if you have not read that point of view and have not thought through whether it's correct or not, or whether you agree with some, none, or all of it, then you have an opinion that is IGNORANT of the entire situation.

I've always been amazed that people with liberal viewpoints don't think they owe it to themselves to make their decisions based on THOUGHT in addition to feelings.


You're horrible at keeping secrets. Give this up now.


That statement completely lacks logic. You ignore the huge amount of non-black, etc people who DON'T believe the way you do. Have you ever noticed that Democrats are just AMAZED that elections are close? That's because they simply cannot accept that about half of the entire population of the nation hold beliefs different from theirs. The rest of you making trouble here -- no, you're not in the majority. Since you are not exactly political trailblazers, you're not the first to push these issues, but you didn't come along after the MAJORITY believes the same as you.

This might be a good place to plug the TV series Cosmos, on National Geographic Channel and Fox. It's a remake of the Carl Sagan series, and it's full of science and history. Narrated by the Director of the Hayden Planetarium, it focuses on the giants of physics and astronomy, across cultures.

Edit - it puts humans in the context of the cosmos. In the episode I saw last night, it was pointed out that every civilization will be the center of its universe, literally.

wowza!! 7 pages that I can never get back from reading.

I'm sick of people espousing idiocy and hoisting some virtuous flag on it as if it's some intellectual high ground.

'Having an opinion' means nothing.

'Vanilla ice cream being the best ice cream ever' is an opinion.

'Bichon frise is the cutest toy dog ever' is an opinion.

'Marriage is between a man and a woman' is an opinion.

'Matt Walsh is a moron' is an opinion.

What matters is what the opinion is and what supports the opinion. However, it's as if the style and delivery matters more than the intellectual framework of the opinion. That results in such intellectually lazy statements as 'he was demonized for having an opinion.'

No, he wasn't. He was 'demonized' for giving money to a Prop 8 campaign. And he was also questioned as a CEO choice for not having mobile market experience, which some in the Board decided was imperative moving forward because they believe Mozilla needs to address the mobile market.

That's what he was... 'demonized' for, or whatever you want to call it. Not that he merely had an opinion, nor a 'mainstream' opinion, which is factually incorrect not to mention a fallacy.

But it's funny how Matt Barber (and the entire right wing for that matter) (EDIT: Matt Walsh, although Matt Barber is the douchier of the two) are demonizing the Gaystapo for standing up to Eich. Nothing more facile than the whining about Eich's opinion and calls of oppression against Eich when the reality is that Eich (and Prop 8) are the very essence of oppression. Especially since actual live gay people (who also have opinions, which nobody seems to care about) actually voiced their opinion about working at a supposedly progressive company where the CEO gave $1000 to a Prop 8 campaign. Not to mention the actual live straight people who empathize and support gay people and their rights to live as the rest of us do, without laws being passed to infringe on their relationships. Odd that that's not considered oppression.

The CEO, the prominent leader facing the public, giving money to a Prop 8 isn't some kind of oppression or division, yet the people speaking out against him somehow are.

Now that is a screwed up opinion. Not to mention the care and sympathy given to Eich's poor widdle feewings with absolutely no consideration given to actual live real bonafide gay people who work at Mozilla. Not to mention straight people who found his support of Prop 8 offensive.

In case anybody forgot (or are just ignorant), let's take a walk down the insidious Prop 8 memory lane. 

How about the religious find another term. Try 'holy matrimony' or communion.

This just smacks of triteness and petty grievance of not accepting the inevitable.

For the record I haven't read move than two pages of this thread. Probably for the best lest my opinion be lowered of people who choose ideology instead of thought.

Nothing as asinine as the talking point that those speaking out against shameful oppression and holding those accountable for that shameful oppression are they themselves somehow painted as the oppressors by those who support the shameful oppression.

It's the equivalent of some 13 yr old finishing Animal Farm then Atlas Shrugged and thinking he has somehow become politically aware of the world. It's still 13 year old intellectualism. It's not an opinion worth respecting. 

UPDATE - quote from link to drive the point home:

The view that Eich was just expressing his opposition to marriage equality, a common stance at the time, strikes me as naive. Because Prop 8 is now dead, and because its passage was largely overshadowed by President Barack Obama’s election victory, it’s easy to forget the vicious tactics of the pro-Prop 8 campaign. Or, I should say, it’s easy to forget them if you’re not gay—because almost every gay person I know remembers the passage of Prop 8 as the most traumatic and degrading anti-gay event in recent American history.
 

gay people are being oppressed for having opinions

I think we should all take a break. Let's start with Prom Fail Pictures. This isn't the first one in the series, so you can choose left or right, pun intended. I just think that a photo of three chicks in prom dresses, holding three chicks in their original feathers, is a nice antidote to all this.

I think this thread has shown us some things. Some people can stick to the subject, some can't, hardly anyone will change their minds as the result of an experiment like this one... what I find too bad is that, just like spokesholes for either side of the arguments, many people write in terms that are neutral and reasonable enough not to turn off the other side. It is VERY heartening that here has been so little name-calling, though.

Anyway, chicks with chicks and unbelievable photos to either side: [Link: mom.me]

It has made me so happy to see a show like Cosmos on tv and on main networks.. I get excited every sunday night to see whats next from it.

It's a weird world when somebody can express a neutral and reasonable opinion about denying rights and human dignity to a significant portion of our population.

Whereas, the people who speak out against that neutral and reasonable opinion and hold public figures accountable for those neutral and reasonable opinions are somehow made to not be neutral and reasonable.

That's nothing more than a flipping of the debate to imply the victims are the antagonists and the antagonists are the victims.

So yes, I think people should take a break from this facile talking point.