Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Should Mozilla’S Firefox Boss Have Lost His Job?
70 Answers
http://
Are the gay rights movement taking thing too far, this gay conservative seems to think so?
/// Sullivan, a gay conservative, concluded: “If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.” ///
http://
Are the gay rights movement taking thing too far, this gay conservative seems to think so?
/// Sullivan, a gay conservative, concluded: “If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.” ///
http://
Answers
If one read's the news articles they find that Sullivan donated his $1,000 to the support of California's Proposition 8, which was a vote by the citizen's of that State to ban gay marriage in 2008! It's especially important to understand that Prop 8 (as it's known)was passed by a large majority of Californians
13:37 Sat 05th Apr 2014
42% of marriages end in divorce
http://
nearly half of children born out of wedlock (though of course some parents may marry later, that's not uncommon)
http://
http://
nearly half of children born out of wedlock (though of course some parents may marry later, that's not uncommon)
http://
/// This question has been asked so many times, and not a single person has ever been able to give a satisfactory answer, in my view - exactly how does same-sex marriage invalidate or threaten heterosexual marriage? ///
it is not a matter of it threatening heterosexual marriage, or even invalidating it in any way, it is a matter of persons being allowed to have the right of voicing their views on certain important religious beliefs that they personally hold dear and which have stood for thousands of years.
Why should they denounce those beliefs, are they not allowed equality to their opinions also, without being ostracised by those groups who are themselves vehemently opposed to being treated so?
it is not a matter of it threatening heterosexual marriage, or even invalidating it in any way, it is a matter of persons being allowed to have the right of voicing their views on certain important religious beliefs that they personally hold dear and which have stood for thousands of years.
Why should they denounce those beliefs, are they not allowed equality to their opinions also, without being ostracised by those groups who are themselves vehemently opposed to being treated so?
AOG
The American Family Association arrange boycotts of companies that...arrange for equal treatment of their gay employees.
Think about that for a moment.
Now...aren't you horrified that right wing Christian fundamentalist organisations like this can behave like this?
Why don't people see THAT as intolerance.
And why don't people post questions about that?
With the level playing field in mind and all that.
The American Family Association arrange boycotts of companies that...arrange for equal treatment of their gay employees.
Think about that for a moment.
Now...aren't you horrified that right wing Christian fundamentalist organisations like this can behave like this?
Why don't people see THAT as intolerance.
And why don't people post questions about that?
With the level playing field in mind and all that.
Eich was not resigned for being anti-Gay. Until mid week the company were defending him. It was the revelation that he gave money to a presidential campaign of a far right candidate, that was his downfall. If it turned out that Alan Sugar had supported the BNP, I doubt he would keep his job long.
// He was being defended by company executives last week and throughout the early part of this week, even as the dating site OKCupid had urged users to boycott Firefox. Eich even gave an interview on Tuesday suggesting he was staying put. Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign. Suddenly, in addition to defending a CEO who gave money to homophobic efforts, Mozilla would have to defend a CEO who supported Buchanan, a far-right extremist and isolationist who's been accused of racist and anti-Semitic attacks. //
// He was being defended by company executives last week and throughout the early part of this week, even as the dating site OKCupid had urged users to boycott Firefox. Eich even gave an interview on Tuesday suggesting he was staying put. Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he'd given money to Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul's campaign. Suddenly, in addition to defending a CEO who gave money to homophobic efforts, Mozilla would have to defend a CEO who supported Buchanan, a far-right extremist and isolationist who's been accused of racist and anti-Semitic attacks. //
AOG
Why are you ignoring what I wrote about the AFA.
Do you accept that that there are right wing Christian organisations who use boycott methods to influence the social agenda of companies in the US?
If so, would the 'level playing field' you refer to be served best by those who support equal rights for gay people, being allowed to boycott whatever company it chooses.
If you don't wish to engage, but merely respond with a deflection, then no worries - let's call it quits. I'm on a train with patchy Wifi, so an happy to call time on this - especially as I think I've made my poin...
Oh...and we're near Euston anyway - so I'll have to sign off anyway.
Why are you ignoring what I wrote about the AFA.
Do you accept that that there are right wing Christian organisations who use boycott methods to influence the social agenda of companies in the US?
If so, would the 'level playing field' you refer to be served best by those who support equal rights for gay people, being allowed to boycott whatever company it chooses.
If you don't wish to engage, but merely respond with a deflection, then no worries - let's call it quits. I'm on a train with patchy Wifi, so an happy to call time on this - especially as I think I've made my poin...
Oh...and we're near Euston anyway - so I'll have to sign off anyway.
That was a hypothetical statement AOG. I didn't expect you to believe Sugar would support the BNP.
Mozilla Foundation's Company statement is worth a read.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.
https:/
Of Course the threat to their $1billion revenues had nothing to do with the decission.
Mozilla Foundation's Company statement is worth a read.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.
https:/
Of Course the threat to their $1billion revenues had nothing to do with the decission.
@Clanad.
OK, some interesting points. I would argue that Government and private citizen alike need to obey the same laws. We live in a society, and as well as enjoying rights, you also have responsibilities and obligations toward that society; And part of that is not to discriminate against others based around ethnicity, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation.Treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated. What you appear to be advocating is anarchy, with private citizens choosing which laws and behaviours they wish to display.
And your objection to same-sex marriage can be summarised thusly. It appears to rest upon 2 strands of belief,
1.Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, it's a deliberately chosen behaviour. This, to your mind, is supported by your anecdotal evidence of 3 people allegedly once gay now straight, and upon some particular objectors from within the black community, who reject the genetic basis of homosexuality in favour of a learned, behavioural "lifestyle" choice.
-The science and the evidence disagrees with you. I would suggest.Homosexuality has been observed in many mammalian species, especially those highly social mammalian species that have more time to engage in sex, and play. So by that measure it is not unnatural. And all the evidence collected from the various studies into human sexuality suggest that your sexual orientation is as hard-wired into an individual as is their colour. I have no doubt that there will be some individuals whose sexual preferences are not as polar, who might well experiment. This is because your sexual preference can be hardwired anywhere along a range of sexual orientations.
There will also be individuals who "live a lie", rather than admitting what their own body is telling them, but again the evidence tends to demonstrate that when you finally align your life with your biology you are much happier bunny. There have been many often religiously- sponsored "deprogramming" camps, but these have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
2. Homosexuals are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, and in consequence would not take their vows seriously, and this in turn devalues marriage.This belief you support with a mix of references and opinion. Sexual fidelity amongst gay men is less of a concern than a heterosexual couple.
There are indeed studies that show that gay men are less concerned about sexual fidelity. There are also several studies showing that many same-sex couples have the same opinion about marriage as their heterosexual counterparts.And attitudes towards sexual behaviour is not so polarised and binary as you suggest.You will find heterosexual couples who love each other, but who make accommodations amongst themselves about sleeping around. In contrast, you will find many gay couples who are devoted to each other and have no desire for promiscuity or other sexual partners.
There are all sorts of behaviours amongst heterosexual couples carried out right now, around the globe, that contradict the vows they may have taken, but that is their choice. It does not of itself devalue your marriage vows. The same would apply for same-sex marriage, it seems to me. Given the steadily rising divorce rate and increasing sexual freedoms for people, the concept and contract of marriage has to change and adapt. And in world where drunken strangers can get married 24/7, how does granting same-sex couple the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts devalue marriage any further than it already is?
As far as prop 8 goes, it was an illiberal measure, supported by roughly half the population and objected to by roughly half the californian population. I do not pretend to be familiar with US law, but the judge struck it down and offered compelling reasons for doing so. That seems entirely fair to me, since the community of California resides within the larger social grouping of the USA.
OK, some interesting points. I would argue that Government and private citizen alike need to obey the same laws. We live in a society, and as well as enjoying rights, you also have responsibilities and obligations toward that society; And part of that is not to discriminate against others based around ethnicity, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation.Treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated. What you appear to be advocating is anarchy, with private citizens choosing which laws and behaviours they wish to display.
And your objection to same-sex marriage can be summarised thusly. It appears to rest upon 2 strands of belief,
1.Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, it's a deliberately chosen behaviour. This, to your mind, is supported by your anecdotal evidence of 3 people allegedly once gay now straight, and upon some particular objectors from within the black community, who reject the genetic basis of homosexuality in favour of a learned, behavioural "lifestyle" choice.
-The science and the evidence disagrees with you. I would suggest.Homosexuality has been observed in many mammalian species, especially those highly social mammalian species that have more time to engage in sex, and play. So by that measure it is not unnatural. And all the evidence collected from the various studies into human sexuality suggest that your sexual orientation is as hard-wired into an individual as is their colour. I have no doubt that there will be some individuals whose sexual preferences are not as polar, who might well experiment. This is because your sexual preference can be hardwired anywhere along a range of sexual orientations.
There will also be individuals who "live a lie", rather than admitting what their own body is telling them, but again the evidence tends to demonstrate that when you finally align your life with your biology you are much happier bunny. There have been many often religiously- sponsored "deprogramming" camps, but these have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
2. Homosexuals are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, and in consequence would not take their vows seriously, and this in turn devalues marriage.This belief you support with a mix of references and opinion. Sexual fidelity amongst gay men is less of a concern than a heterosexual couple.
There are indeed studies that show that gay men are less concerned about sexual fidelity. There are also several studies showing that many same-sex couples have the same opinion about marriage as their heterosexual counterparts.And attitudes towards sexual behaviour is not so polarised and binary as you suggest.You will find heterosexual couples who love each other, but who make accommodations amongst themselves about sleeping around. In contrast, you will find many gay couples who are devoted to each other and have no desire for promiscuity or other sexual partners.
There are all sorts of behaviours amongst heterosexual couples carried out right now, around the globe, that contradict the vows they may have taken, but that is their choice. It does not of itself devalue your marriage vows. The same would apply for same-sex marriage, it seems to me. Given the steadily rising divorce rate and increasing sexual freedoms for people, the concept and contract of marriage has to change and adapt. And in world where drunken strangers can get married 24/7, how does granting same-sex couple the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts devalue marriage any further than it already is?
As far as prop 8 goes, it was an illiberal measure, supported by roughly half the population and objected to by roughly half the californian population. I do not pretend to be familiar with US law, but the judge struck it down and offered compelling reasons for doing so. That seems entirely fair to me, since the community of California resides within the larger social grouping of the USA.
@AoG
Everyone is entirely within their rights to voice objections to other lifestyles - happens all the time. But if you express such an opinion, others in turn have the right to criticize and question those opinions you have expressed.
And if your expressed opinion is stubbornly, strongly, repeatedly and unfairly opposed to members of a particular group, based around a prejudiced and stereotypical view of the actions or behaviours of an ethnic group or those with a different skin colour, or of a different gender or sexual orientation then you have to be prepared for being labelled a bigot.
Thats how it works.
So if same-sex marriage does not threaten or invalidate heterosexual marriage, why are those same objectors still wishing to deny same-sex couples the same legal freedoms as their heterosexual counterparts? If it does not undermine or threaten or otherwise invalidate the institution of marriage- what are those objections based upon? The most vehement objection appears to emanate mostly from those of strong religious belief, and the religious institutions themselves.
Society has moved on. The prevailing public opinion has moved rapidly from being broadly anti-homosexual to being one tolerant of same sex relationships. It has also recognised that it is iniquitous and unfair to penalise people for their sexual orientation in exactly the same way that is unfair and intolerant to treat people unfairly over the colour of their skin, or their gender.
So the weight of social and cultural opinion has moved toward accepting same -sex relationships and supporting the right of such couples to be able to marry.
The politicians, recognising that, have rewritten the legislation to allow for this.That is how democracy is supposed to work.
Just as gay activists have every right to organise a consumer boycott of a company over the appointment of a CEO or a service or a company ethos, those activist religious consumers are equally at liberty to do the same. (and very probably have and do)
Again, that is how democracy works.
Clanad has had a go at explaining his concerns. I understand his points, but I do not agree with them, nor do I think the science or the evidence or fairness/tolerance or even rationality supports their view.
And for those who would seek to deny that equality to homosexuals, I would be interested to know how they would respond should one of their children declare themselves gay. Would they still support such inequality, deny their own children such rights? We are all human, with the capacity and the desire to love.
Everyone is entirely within their rights to voice objections to other lifestyles - happens all the time. But if you express such an opinion, others in turn have the right to criticize and question those opinions you have expressed.
And if your expressed opinion is stubbornly, strongly, repeatedly and unfairly opposed to members of a particular group, based around a prejudiced and stereotypical view of the actions or behaviours of an ethnic group or those with a different skin colour, or of a different gender or sexual orientation then you have to be prepared for being labelled a bigot.
Thats how it works.
So if same-sex marriage does not threaten or invalidate heterosexual marriage, why are those same objectors still wishing to deny same-sex couples the same legal freedoms as their heterosexual counterparts? If it does not undermine or threaten or otherwise invalidate the institution of marriage- what are those objections based upon? The most vehement objection appears to emanate mostly from those of strong religious belief, and the religious institutions themselves.
Society has moved on. The prevailing public opinion has moved rapidly from being broadly anti-homosexual to being one tolerant of same sex relationships. It has also recognised that it is iniquitous and unfair to penalise people for their sexual orientation in exactly the same way that is unfair and intolerant to treat people unfairly over the colour of their skin, or their gender.
So the weight of social and cultural opinion has moved toward accepting same -sex relationships and supporting the right of such couples to be able to marry.
The politicians, recognising that, have rewritten the legislation to allow for this.That is how democracy is supposed to work.
Just as gay activists have every right to organise a consumer boycott of a company over the appointment of a CEO or a service or a company ethos, those activist religious consumers are equally at liberty to do the same. (and very probably have and do)
Again, that is how democracy works.
Clanad has had a go at explaining his concerns. I understand his points, but I do not agree with them, nor do I think the science or the evidence or fairness/tolerance or even rationality supports their view.
And for those who would seek to deny that equality to homosexuals, I would be interested to know how they would respond should one of their children declare themselves gay. Would they still support such inequality, deny their own children such rights? We are all human, with the capacity and the desire to love.
LazyGun
/// And if your expressed opinion is stubbornly, strongly, repeatedly and unfairly opposed to members of a particular group, based around a prejudiced and stereotypical view of the actions or behaviours of an ethnic group or those with a different skin colour, or of a different gender or sexual orientation then you have to be prepared for being labelled a bigot. ///
*** behaviours of an ethnic group or those with a different skin colour, or of a different gender or sexual orientation ***
You have missed out "RELIGIOUS" for some reason.
/// And if your expressed opinion is stubbornly, strongly, repeatedly and unfairly opposed to members of a particular group, based around a prejudiced and stereotypical view of the actions or behaviours of an ethnic group or those with a different skin colour, or of a different gender or sexual orientation then you have to be prepared for being labelled a bigot. ///
*** behaviours of an ethnic group or those with a different skin colour, or of a different gender or sexual orientation ***
You have missed out "RELIGIOUS" for some reason.
"You have missed out "RELIGIOUS" for some reason."
I left it out deliberately. Your religion is not biologically hardwired; rather it is a learned belief. Like ideas and opinions, religion is open to challenge.
Where a particular religion becomes associated with a particular ethnicity, that's where it starts to get complicated.
I left it out deliberately. Your religion is not biologically hardwired; rather it is a learned belief. Like ideas and opinions, religion is open to challenge.
Where a particular religion becomes associated with a particular ethnicity, that's where it starts to get complicated.
Lazygun, if one of the members of my family were gay I would still love them as I do now - but - it would not alter my opinion of opposing gay marriage, although I support civil marriage - the decision would be theirs as my opinion is mine. Well done Andrew Sullivan for telling it as it is - trying to gag free speech all who oppose, a long slippery slope in the making.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.