whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance

hurfdurf said:
Separate but equal doesn't work m8.
Click to expand...

Explain why. If civil partnership conveyed the same rights as marriage, and was different only by name, what real harm would that do.

It might **** you off, but that's not my problem. In fact that's not a real problem at all. You have the right to be **** off, and I have the right to claim it doesn't matter a jot.

Not too long ago some people were **** off that bin liners were black. Herpa derpa derp.
 
FoxEye said:
Explain why. If civil partnership conveyed the same rights as marriage, and was different only by name, what real harm would that do.
Click to expand...
In that case you are admitting they are less than, a second class citizen, they can have something that's like marriage but they can't have marriage because they might hurt the feelings of some married people.

It might **** you off, but that's not my problem. In fact that's not a real problem at all. You have the right to be **** off, and I have the right to claim it doesn't matter a jot.
Click to expand...

I want gay people to get married, It might **** you off, but that's not my problem. In fact that's not a real problem at all. You have the right to be **** off, and I have the right to claim it doesn't matter a jot.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
I want gay people to get married, It might **** you off, but that's not my problem. In fact that's not a real problem at all. You have the right to be **** off, and I have the right to claim it doesn't matter a jot.
Click to expand...

I'm not a minority, so stuff that **** me off isn't a priority for the damn liberals :p

Now that we have it, I'm not going to campaign against it. But I never saw the need for it.

Do we have to start changing the law whenever some minority gets sand in its collective vag? For the record, I'm not suggesting we should treat minorities badly. But I don't want to start changing society whenever some group or other feels under-appreciated/ butthurt.
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
It's not just a personal opinion. He's tried to influence the law of the land in favour of his opinion by publicly donating his own money to support a discriminatory legal bill.
Click to expand...

Anyone who votes tries to influence the law of the land. Anyone who joins a trade union tries to change the law of the land. Anyone who signs an online petition tries to change the law of the land.

None of those things are illegal or even immoral.
 
I think what annoyed the general populous about gay marriage (other than the topic itself), was how it was brought about. Was it in Dave's election manifesto? Nope.
So if it's not what you said you'd do when you asked people to vote for you, why are you doing it now that they have voted for you?
 
Did he say he wouldn't do it?

Seems like a very bizarre comment, you can't seriously expect every decision the government makes to be in their manifesto. They don't have a crystal ball either.
 
I think whether one agrees with the redefinition of marriage or not isn't the point here.

Fascists want to stop some guy having an opinion.
 
jas72 said:
@ OP How'd you get that nickname? :D
Click to expand...

i asked if i can have another name, they answered me by changing it to what it is.

anything I don't mind said:
The only reasons they want to get married is to feel more accepted and to get legal status, it has nothing to do with a family per se.
Click to expand...

Rather bigoted thing to say. my grandma's who live in california wanted to be together as a family. they got married in the 2 weeks that gay marriage was allowed in california, just before prop8 unfortunately then came into effect with the help of these donations and their marriage wasn't recognise. they lost out. from 2008 until just last year my grandma who doesn't hold a usa passport had to leave the country every 6 months for 6 months at a time, and didn't know when she was returning to the usa if she'd ever be allowed back in. her wife at the time was working for the state as she had done her whole life eventually had to take early retirement. they are both 70+, they obviously can't have kids but neither can straight couples of that age, however straight elderly couples are obviously not discriminated against just because they can't be a natural family, and are still allowed to marry. my grandma's wife now has [step]kids as a result of this marriage and a large family. she has a son and a daughter, and 7 grandkids, me being a very proud one.

bit of a shameless plug here but if anyone wants to read about their story they have a blog here

anything I don't mind said:
A lot of people don't care for the better meant of society as whole and only care about their personal interest.
Click to expand...

you being one of them!

FoxEye said:
Reality check.
Like someone already said, you going to boycott Javascript? If not, why not? Hypocrites :p
Click to expand...

but that would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face surely. javascript there is no alternative. firefox there is a simple one. it's made a point without a cost to them, what's wrong with that? they can continue doing what they do, and by free to support what they support without a risk of shareholders telling them not to as it destroys their website (by not using javascipt).
 
Last edited:
anything I don't mind said:
Of course we can. Marriage was invented so that children would be raised within the natural family environment. Its not rocket science. Only people who do not hold the natural family as important would come out with something so ridiculous.

Well we have a difference of opinion. I think the make up is important you obviously don't see the importance of the natural family. Which is quite common with people of your ideology.
Click to expand...

I'll throw in my ha'porth...

Marriage was invented as a form of contract. Children were part of the reason, but only part and only for the purposes of legal rights and responsibilities. A marriage isn't automatically nullified by a lack of children. Do you think it should be?

You keep using nature as a false appeal to authority. That just makes your argument look baseless. You're using nature as a god, essentially, i.e. an unchallengeable claim that your opinion has ultimate authority. In fact, nature doesn't care. "Natural" does not mean "right" or "good". It is natural for one person to murder another person in order to steal their resources. It is natural for one person to murder another person in anger. Arsenic is natural. AIDS is natural. Senile dementia is natural. A huge number of bad things are natural. Nature has absolutely nothing to do with what's good or bad or right or wrong.

Your "natural family" spiel obviously can't include adoption or fostering. Are you opposed to adoption and fostering? If not, why not?

It also can't include any children who exist as a result of IVF - that's obviously not natural. Are you opposed to IVF?

How about other unnatural things that make a child possible? Some causes of infertility can be fixed, but of course that isn't natural. Are you opposed to all such medical procedures, including drugs?

Very many children only survive because of unnatural things. The natural pre-adult mortality rate is ~35%, usually from disease. Using artificial means to stop children dying of smallpox, diphtheria and the dozens of other diseases that naturally kill many children is obviously unnatural. Are you opposed to using unnatural means to stop children naturally dying of curable diseases? If not, why not?

Come to think of it, why only children? If you're really opposed to unnatural things, you should be opposed to almost all of modern medicine.
 
The Running Man said:
Well my point is that the fact we still have a human race tells us that gay is an abnormality and not the norm.
Click to expand...

Yes, and?

Looking at humanity overall, it's clear that less than half of humans have pale skin. It is therefore abnormal for a human to have pale skin. Does that mean that people with pale skin shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or how about people over 6 feet tall? That's abnormal too.

"normal" doesn't mean "right", "good" or anything of the kind.

"normal" just means "what happens more often than not".

The "normal" argument isn't as bad as the "natural" argument, but it's still utterly wrong and rather silly.
 
spudbynight said:
Boycotting Mozilla to try and get a guy fired because he has an opinion you disagree with - fascist!
Click to expand...

Boycotting is the very principle of capitalism and the free market, it is the antithesis of fascism.

His position is directly in contradiction with the companies own principles, that is a clear conflict of interest that undermines the company and is not about one man but about the companies practices.

It is clearly unethical for this guy to be getting paid god knows how much from a company that is claiming to be supporting sexual freedom and being donated to on the basis of such.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
I'll throw in my ha'porth...

Marriage was invented as a form of contract. Children were part of the reason, but only part and only for the purposes of legal rights and responsibilities. A marriage isn't automatically nullified by a lack of children. Do you think it should be?

You keep using nature as a false appeal to authority. That just makes your argument look baseless. You're using nature as a god, essentially, i.e. an unchallengeable claim that your opinion has ultimate authority. In fact, nature doesn't care. "Natural" does not mean "right" or "good". It is natural for one person to murder another person in order to steal their resources. It is natural for one person to murder another person in anger. Arsenic is natural. AIDS is natural. Senile dementia is natural. A huge number of bad things are natural. Nature has absolutely nothing to do with what's good or bad or right or wrong.

Your "natural family" spiel obviously can't include adoption or fostering. Are you opposed to adoption and fostering? If not, why not?

It also can't include any children who exist as a result of IVF - that's obviously not natural. Are you opposed to IVF?

How about other unnatural things that make a child possible? Some causes of infertility can be fixed, but of course that isn't natural. Are you opposed to all such medical procedures, including drugs?

Very many children only survive because of unnatural things. The natural pre-adult mortality rate is ~35%, usually from disease. Using artificial means to stop children dying of smallpox, diphtheria and the dozens of other diseases that naturally kill many children is obviously unnatural. Are you opposed to using unnatural means to stop children naturally dying of curable diseases? If not, why not?

Come to think of it, why only children? If you're really opposed to unnatural things, you should be opposed to almost all of modern medicine.
Click to expand...

You missed the point completely.
 
OhEsEcks said:
The primary reason marriage, or the joining of a man and a woman together has historically been done is because of money. [..]
Click to expand...

Not really. That was often the case in marriages between wealthy families. I phrased it that way deliberately because in many ways the marriage was between the families more than between the individuals. Money, power, status.

But the majority of people didn't have enough money, power or status for that to be the primary factor and quite a few people who did have enough money or power married for personal reasons anyway.

Your comments about women being property owes more to modern propaganda than reality, even for the tiny minority of people with wealth, power and status (which is where sexism was worst - most people couldn't afford it). There was inequality, but not usually (let alone always) that simplistic or that extreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom