whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance
- Thread starter unwashed potato!
- Start date
You can move away from Firefox by using a replacement browser much easier than you can move away from Javascript.
You are starting to come across as anti-gay now. What do you mean by "if anyone can marry anything"? Do you mean a man marrying a man is akin to a man marrying a beast? Are you of the opinion that a man marrying a beast should be allowed if a man is able to marry a man?
You can't discriminate against a tradition
And Gays being married in no way reduces the significance of being married for anyone else doing it
If I stick a carrot up my arse, does that make all carrots taste worse for everyone else?
I know that, but they feel so strongly about it to put up a page for Firefox users it begs the question why not stop using Javascript?
The answer is because it would affect them way to much. Which just dilutes their argument in my eyes.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
Just because you have a ceremony around it doesn't mean a marriage certificate is anything more than a legal document.
So you are OK with discriminating against "the gays" but not OK with your perceived discrimination against traditional marriage?
Aha, do you mean OKCupid rather than all Firefox users? I see now. Well, if it harms them, it wouldn't be as simple a PR stunt would it?
I posted the above response before I saw this. We are of a mind
I have not found any explanation of why he supported proposition 8, however it was widely seen as an explicitly anti-gay piece of legislation. He does however seem to be doing a very good attempt at backtracking.
I have not found any explanation of why he supported proposition 8, however it was widely seen as an explicitly anti-gay piece of legislation. He does however seem to be doing a very good attempt at backtracking.
I haven't seen a direct quote, and therefore have taken everything with a pinch of salt. CEOs are all politically minded in nature, as are all media outlets.
He didn't kill babies, he monetarily supported discriminatory legislation.
By which I mean, it's not something to change your life over to make a point. But switching browsers or even just giving negative public feedback is reasonably proportionate if you feel his actions were wrong.
20th century:
"Sticks and stones will hurt my bones but words will never hurt me"
21st century:
"This is offensive, ban it and tarnish anyone who uses it as a <insert 'ist' word here>"
IMO it is just social conditioning, everybody is being told to what to think and they either have to fall in line like sheep or be labelled as an extremist for having their own (differing) opinion.
"Sticks and stones will hurt my bones but words will never hurt me"
21st century:
"This is offensive, ban it and tarnish anyone who uses it as a <insert 'ist' word here>"
IMO it is just social conditioning, everybody is being told to what to think and they either have to fall in line like sheep or be labelled as an extremist for having their own (differing) opinion.
I take it you're referring to the anti gay legislation there?
"Everyone should be straight or we'll get all offended and not let you play"
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
I'm sure people in the past said that about wanting to abolish slaves, segregation and allowing interracial marriages...
I'm in no way saying they are of equal standing but you can't sit there and say OMG POLITICAL CORRECTNESS......
What a load of absolute rubbish.
There is no such thing as a traditional marriage, it's a concept of joining which has existed in thousands of different forms across time & cultures - between mixed & same sexes.
How does two men/women getting married discriminate against a married couple exactly?, also comparing it to marrying a dog simply highlights the level you currently think at (a laughable one).
Excellent
.It's more of a case before the bigots/racists/sexists & homophobes were in such a majority they were never challenged.
As the younger generations are growing up (who on average are more socially accepting) they are starting the speak out against the older & more bigoted generations on issues related to equality (obviously only on average, many older people are decent/young people are bigoted - but the averages are pretty clear when you look at data related to social attitudes by age group).
This is called social evolution & is a good thing.
Last edited:
He directly donated to the Yes to Proposition 8 campaign. So a direct financial donation to a bill that was specifically anti gay. That shows a certain level of support for it. I don't think he has made any public announcements on why he supported the bill but he is certainly now making lots of public announcements about how Mozilla is gay friendly.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
This was actually the point i was making against the gays. Unsurprisingly you twist it back on to me. I was not the one using the term discrimination to start with. It was used by the gays who claim that not being for homosexual marriage is discrimination, so i reversed that and made the point that being for homosexual marriage is discriminating against people who advocate traditional marriage. So gays are alight to point out discrimination but fail to see their own discrimination.
I am against government marriage all together, we have enough problems with the natural family, the last thing we need is gay marriage to further diminish the importance of the natural family. Its too late now though, although government marriage was always a legal agreement, the traditional significance of marriage which goes back millennia has now been annulled.
You may think you are being clever here but in reality you are making very little sense at all.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
You don't have to be "for" homosexual marriage, that is your right. But claiming gays can't get marriage because it somehow changes the definition of your marriage is ridiculous.
Of course its discrimination when you are free you to get married and gays can't "just because" (though now they can as of a few days ago)
Not sure how gays getting married is going to change the traditional family, it just means thousands of other people who love each other can share their lives together.
My point is thinking a certain way which differs to the majority is not a crime, we seem to have created a society where individual differences of opinion are punished and as a result everyone simply 'follows', most of the greatest people in history are those who thought with their own brain and formed their own ideas/opinions.
If people want to argue against gay marriage then let them do it, it's law now so what does it matter? punishing people for thinking differently to the majority is oppression too but it's somehow alright when the shoe is on the other foot?
If people want to argue against gay marriage then let them do it, it's law now so what does it matter? punishing people for thinking differently to the majority is oppression too but it's somehow alright when the shoe is on the other foot?