Shopping & Style1 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
@Clanad Could you offer a link to this anecdote of yours? I rarely comment on anecdote, unless their is documentation to support it.
"the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) becomes involved since disobeying a directive from a crew member is a Federal offense and results in a significant civil penalty. This has happened a couple of times on my own flights. So… what's my point? On one occasion, (though not my flight) the same activity involved two men, so I'm assuming they were homosexual. The same procedure was taken (Company policy) but the two FA's were later sued by a Bash Back! type of organization. The suit failed, of course, but in the mean time, the cost to the airline for providing the FA's attorneys, lost work and the late night telephoned threats took their toll"
The "homosexual agenda" as you term it can be viewed as an ongoing attempt at creating equality for those of a different sexual orientation to the heterosexual norm, in an effort to counterbalance the years and years of vicious repression. As with any movement of activists, you will get some who are more extreme than others, but that does not make them representative of the majority.
And "Spiked" are welcome to their opinion, and its perfectly fine if they wish to express it, but they are most certainly not the last word in the science and fact of sexual orientation. The facts tell us that sexual orientation is fixed rather early on in an individuals development, that genetics, epigenetics and the influence of hormones during gestation are the overwhelming contributory factors in determining someones eventual sexual orientation.
In this, those who are homosexual have no more choice than an individual has over their skin colour, or their gender.
To continue to treat them as somehow inferior, or second class, or "unnatural" or an "abomination" is wrong. We are all human. We all share the same human needs, regardless of our individual sexual orientation, and refusing to recognise same-sex marriage or suggesting that accepting them somehow ( never to be explained how) demeans or devalues "regular" marriage is pretty shameful really, in my opinion.
"the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) becomes involved since disobeying a directive from a crew member is a Federal offense and results in a significant civil penalty. This has happened a couple of times on my own flights. So… what's my point? On one occasion, (though not my flight) the same activity involved two men, so I'm assuming they were homosexual. The same procedure was taken (Company policy) but the two FA's were later sued by a Bash Back! type of organization. The suit failed, of course, but in the mean time, the cost to the airline for providing the FA's attorneys, lost work and the late night telephoned threats took their toll"
The "homosexual agenda" as you term it can be viewed as an ongoing attempt at creating equality for those of a different sexual orientation to the heterosexual norm, in an effort to counterbalance the years and years of vicious repression. As with any movement of activists, you will get some who are more extreme than others, but that does not make them representative of the majority.
And "Spiked" are welcome to their opinion, and its perfectly fine if they wish to express it, but they are most certainly not the last word in the science and fact of sexual orientation. The facts tell us that sexual orientation is fixed rather early on in an individuals development, that genetics, epigenetics and the influence of hormones during gestation are the overwhelming contributory factors in determining someones eventual sexual orientation.
In this, those who are homosexual have no more choice than an individual has over their skin colour, or their gender.
To continue to treat them as somehow inferior, or second class, or "unnatural" or an "abomination" is wrong. We are all human. We all share the same human needs, regardless of our individual sexual orientation, and refusing to recognise same-sex marriage or suggesting that accepting them somehow ( never to be explained how) demeans or devalues "regular" marriage is pretty shameful really, in my opinion.
Ok... I see I'm beginning to repeat myself which means we've about exhausted our arguments.
My point, to reiterate, is it's just as reprehensible for the supporters of homosexual rights to attack those that are on the other side as it is for those that truly persecuted homosexuals.
Someone in this thread said something like 'I don't care what others do in their own bedrooms', to which I say 'Amen'! However, it proves once again that 'denial' is something other than a river in Egypt... meaning there really is an organized effort by some 'militant gay' organizations to suppress any criticism of their life style. What happened to Mr. Eich didn't happen in a vacuum.
Finally (and I semi-mean it this time) if one owned, let's say, a small restaurant... and a homeless person came in with all of their earthly belongings in plastic bags and not having bathed for a month or so and plops themselves down in the waiting area ranting about how society hasn't helped him/her enough, the owner, regardless of his sympathies toward the individual, could have him removed by the police for disturbing the peace, so to speak. But, a gay person or persons could do the same thing and the owner would be reluctant to do anything about it (other than to endure) because of the costs involved, etc. The difference? None; both are behaviors are they not? Yet one has gained at least a semblance of public acceptance while the other one hasn't. I would submit the one that hasn't, really has more of a basis for their actions, no? So... if the militant gays wanted to keep their personal activities in the 'bedroom', I, nor few others would present any challenges to their right to do so. I would object just as strenously to male/female activities in public... they should keep their's in the bedroom as well...
The scenario presented isn't far off the mark as representing current events here in the U.S.
Sincere thanks for the on-topic discussion, sorry we can't agree...
My point, to reiterate, is it's just as reprehensible for the supporters of homosexual rights to attack those that are on the other side as it is for those that truly persecuted homosexuals.
Someone in this thread said something like 'I don't care what others do in their own bedrooms', to which I say 'Amen'! However, it proves once again that 'denial' is something other than a river in Egypt... meaning there really is an organized effort by some 'militant gay' organizations to suppress any criticism of their life style. What happened to Mr. Eich didn't happen in a vacuum.
Finally (and I semi-mean it this time) if one owned, let's say, a small restaurant... and a homeless person came in with all of their earthly belongings in plastic bags and not having bathed for a month or so and plops themselves down in the waiting area ranting about how society hasn't helped him/her enough, the owner, regardless of his sympathies toward the individual, could have him removed by the police for disturbing the peace, so to speak. But, a gay person or persons could do the same thing and the owner would be reluctant to do anything about it (other than to endure) because of the costs involved, etc. The difference? None; both are behaviors are they not? Yet one has gained at least a semblance of public acceptance while the other one hasn't. I would submit the one that hasn't, really has more of a basis for their actions, no? So... if the militant gays wanted to keep their personal activities in the 'bedroom', I, nor few others would present any challenges to their right to do so. I would object just as strenously to male/female activities in public... they should keep their's in the bedroom as well...
The scenario presented isn't far off the mark as representing current events here in the U.S.
Sincere thanks for the on-topic discussion, sorry we can't agree...
@Clanad It seems you have reduced yourself to arguing strawmen.
"My point, to reiterate, is it's just as reprehensible for the supporters of homosexual rights to attack those that are on the other side as it is for those that truly persecuted homosexuals."
This is a non-point. The OP was asking if organising a commercial boycott of a company over the expressed views of the CEO was taking things a step too far, a sign of "over-militancy". They are perfectly within their rights - as citizens and as consumers, to organise a commercial boycott should they so wish, just as religious believers can organise a commercial boycott, or companies express a religiously -derived ethos. The calculation in making such public statements is that principles and actions and statements have consequences, if you are in the public eye, are rightly so.
Your second argument is, with respect, risible. It is an a form of argumentum ad absurdum. If someone wanders in off the street into a business and makes a nuisance of themselves, regardless of the motivations, the business owners are perfectly entitled to have them removed. That bears no resemblance to a gay couple booking a room at a B&B then being turned away on arrival because the owners religious beliefs cause them to come over all moralistic over what people get up to in the bedroom. Likewise the bakery owners refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Rather than air their prejudices, they would have been far better off just pricing themselves out the market, or claiming a full order book.
Actions have consequences.
"My point, to reiterate, is it's just as reprehensible for the supporters of homosexual rights to attack those that are on the other side as it is for those that truly persecuted homosexuals."
This is a non-point. The OP was asking if organising a commercial boycott of a company over the expressed views of the CEO was taking things a step too far, a sign of "over-militancy". They are perfectly within their rights - as citizens and as consumers, to organise a commercial boycott should they so wish, just as religious believers can organise a commercial boycott, or companies express a religiously -derived ethos. The calculation in making such public statements is that principles and actions and statements have consequences, if you are in the public eye, are rightly so.
Your second argument is, with respect, risible. It is an a form of argumentum ad absurdum. If someone wanders in off the street into a business and makes a nuisance of themselves, regardless of the motivations, the business owners are perfectly entitled to have them removed. That bears no resemblance to a gay couple booking a room at a B&B then being turned away on arrival because the owners religious beliefs cause them to come over all moralistic over what people get up to in the bedroom. Likewise the bakery owners refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Rather than air their prejudices, they would have been far better off just pricing themselves out the market, or claiming a full order book.
Actions have consequences.
its not impossible that we'll have a less 'liberal' agenda one day soon. I'm sure you'd consider yourself ill-used if any of you lost your jobs for espousing 'liberal' views on here,say.
when I was younger the 'liberals' were the 'good guys'..
now they seem to be intolerant idealogues who have lost any empathy for others.
when I was younger the 'liberals' were the 'good guys'..
now they seem to be intolerant idealogues who have lost any empathy for others.
Opposing gay marriage could be considered very intolerant.
If Activists wish to organise a commercial boycott of a company whose CEO not only public expresses opposition to gay marriage, but actively supports, through cash donations, the suppression of same-sex marriage, that seems entirely fair and proper to me, certainly perfectly legal. If you want to blame anyone for the CEO "losing his job", blame his company - blame capitalism.
How is saying "actions have consequences" even remotely sinister? If you burgle someone, or beat them up, or set fire to a field - are you saying that there should not be consequences?
Similarly, if you take a public position on something- offer a public commentary on an issue, or attend a demonstration or a rally, you should be aware that it might very well have consequences in your own personal future,most especially if you develop a high public profile through success in business, or in any other sphere.
I read comments in forums not just here, and get the impression that some people think they can just say whatever they want, whenever they feel like it, without any recognition at all that things they say may have consequences. That's not how it works.
Whining about "diktats from politbureaus" over this issue is just that - whining.
If Activists wish to organise a commercial boycott of a company whose CEO not only public expresses opposition to gay marriage, but actively supports, through cash donations, the suppression of same-sex marriage, that seems entirely fair and proper to me, certainly perfectly legal. If you want to blame anyone for the CEO "losing his job", blame his company - blame capitalism.
How is saying "actions have consequences" even remotely sinister? If you burgle someone, or beat them up, or set fire to a field - are you saying that there should not be consequences?
Similarly, if you take a public position on something- offer a public commentary on an issue, or attend a demonstration or a rally, you should be aware that it might very well have consequences in your own personal future,most especially if you develop a high public profile through success in business, or in any other sphere.
I read comments in forums not just here, and get the impression that some people think they can just say whatever they want, whenever they feel like it, without any recognition at all that things they say may have consequences. That's not how it works.
Whining about "diktats from politbureaus" over this issue is just that - whining.
Svejk
Do your criticisms of intolerant ideologues extend as far as the American Family Association, who have been organising boycotts of gay-friendly companies since 1977.
And what about the Family Research Council?
And what about One Million Moms?
Or does the term 'intolerant ideologues' only apply to those who oppose discrimination against gay people?
Just trying to understand what your stance is here...whether you oppose all protest, or just some.
Do your criticisms of intolerant ideologues extend as far as the American Family Association, who have been organising boycotts of gay-friendly companies since 1977.
And what about the Family Research Council?
And what about One Million Moms?
Or does the term 'intolerant ideologues' only apply to those who oppose discrimination against gay people?
Just trying to understand what your stance is here...whether you oppose all protest, or just some.
clanad
sorry but your argument doesn't make sense
in your scenario, my understanding was that the homeless person was ejected from the restaurant because they brought with them clutter and a bad smell.
are you suggesting that the tolerance of the gay people would be unfair and undeserved because they had also brought in clutter and a bad smell? or something else in their conduct that caused a problem?
sorry but your argument doesn't make sense
in your scenario, my understanding was that the homeless person was ejected from the restaurant because they brought with them clutter and a bad smell.
are you suggesting that the tolerance of the gay people would be unfair and undeserved because they had also brought in clutter and a bad smell? or something else in their conduct that caused a problem?
Svejk
So...I assume that the AFA, One Million Mom and Family Research Council fall under the umbrella of 'intolerant ideologues'?
I ask, because with the AFA at least, they have been successfully organising boycotts of firms who promote or support equal rights for gays since 1977.
That's 37 years.
And I don't know if you saw one of my earlier posts, but the AFA even organise boycotts against companies that offer equal pension rights to gay employees.
Think about that for a moment...the AFA try to get companies to discriminate against some of their employees, even if internal policies have nothing to do with the business at hand.
That is what I call real intolerance.
But they're very rarely called on it.
So...I assume that the AFA, One Million Mom and Family Research Council fall under the umbrella of 'intolerant ideologues'?
I ask, because with the AFA at least, they have been successfully organising boycotts of firms who promote or support equal rights for gays since 1977.
That's 37 years.
And I don't know if you saw one of my earlier posts, but the AFA even organise boycotts against companies that offer equal pension rights to gay employees.
Think about that for a moment...the AFA try to get companies to discriminate against some of their employees, even if internal policies have nothing to do with the business at hand.
That is what I call real intolerance.
But they're very rarely called on it.
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.