homosexuality

[Clem Fandango]

But if gay people didn't want to get physically and mentally harmed in public, why would they hold pride rallies? Wouldn't that cause a bigger stir?

 

Most gay people act like normal people in public - not because they're afraid of being abused, but because they're ordinary people. Sexual preference doesn't determine how someone dresses or the way they act in public, so why would they hold these rallies and announcements if they're afraid of being harmed or abused?

So they should just accept that they're hated and try to pass for straight?

 

 

 

7000 votes for Australia. 81 percent votes yes. 141,000 votes and 74 percent accept gay marriage. You can tell that there's a high chance that more people would support than attack you if you went out in public and made it out as if you were gay.

Two points: 1) that's still a huge portion of the population that is against gay marriage. 2) just because someone supports their rights doesn't mean they're 100% accepting of them. Just like how in the 60s people might have been in favour of minority rights, but still wouldn't hire them to work in their store or whatever.

[The Odyssey]

 

But if gay people didn't want to get physically and mentally harmed in public, why would they hold pride rallies? Wouldn't that cause a bigger stir?

 

Most gay people act like normal people in public - not because they're afraid of being abused, but because they're ordinary people. Sexual preference doesn't determine how someone dresses or the way they act in public, so why would they hold these rallies and announcements if they're afraid of being harmed or abused?

So they should just accept that they're hated and try to pass for straight?

 

 

No, but ignore the haters. What can they do? The small minority of those who would go out in public and abuse a gay man would be stopped by the large percentage of those who give a sh*t.

 

If you need to dress up in a gimps outfit and parade around on a cock shaped float to prove that you should be accepted, I think you're doing it wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7000 votes for Australia. 81 percent votes yes. 141,000 votes and 74 percent accept gay marriage. You can tell that there's a high chance that more people would support than attack you if you went out in public and made it out as if you were gay.

Two points: 1) that's still a huge portion of the population that is against gay marriage. 2) just because someone supports their rights doesn't mean they're 100% accepting of them. Just like how in the 60s people might have been in favour of minority rights, but still wouldn't hire them to work in their store or whatever.

 

 

 

Mind you that the 1st world countries such as USA, Australia and UK all clock in at around 80 percent. That's a high population. Others countries are just bringing the total percentage down.

 

As for your 2nd point, if you didn't accept gay people for who they were (Eg: Fire them from a certain job because they're gay) then they're not supportive of gays. Period.

 

Besides, most of those people who voted no never actually do anything towards gays. They keep their opinions to themselves.

[Clem Fandango]

Besides, most of those people who voted no never actually do anything towards gays. They keep their opinions to themselves.

 

Good thing nobody with bigoted views ever gets into a position of power or influence, right?

 

 

 

As for your 2nd point, if you didn't accept gay people for who they were (Eg: Fire them from a certain job because they're gay) then they're not supportive of gays. Period.

Indeed, that's why opinion polls about gay marriage aren't an accurate way to gauge attitudes towards homosexuals. Treatment in fiction is probably more telling: see my initial post.

 

 

 

No, but ignore the haters.

Brilliant strategy right there...

Edited February 27, 2014 by Melchior

[The Odyssey]

 

 

 

No, but ignore the haters.

Brilliant strategy right there...

 

Better than dressing up in pink shorts shorts and making sure everyone knows you're different.

 

Pride rallies only make me more uncomfortable with gays. Not saying that I was to begin with.

[Rainbow Party]

Well I agree that pride rallies usually fail the point of actually trying to convince conservative politicians to change their mind. But at the same time it's great to show how you are with no shame. It's not illegal because it doesn't really cause trouble except making people go "ewww". But considering all the trouble that the most hateful homophobic people do on gays (making them feel like they are perverts, telling them society and God hates them, even driving some to suicide), I think that having a pride rally that just furtherly enrages the closed minded bigotted jerks (the meanest ones at least) is at least a good way to stand up against them.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Rainbow Party

[I cucked Alex Jones]

There is no point in trying to win over the conservative politicians. The only way to appease them would be to "renounce" our same sex desires. Pride parades may not get them on our side, but it's an excellent way to piss them off.

[Average white guy]

There is no point in trying to win over the conservative politicians. The only way to appease them would be to "renounce" our same sex desires. Pride parades may not get them on our side, but it's an excellent way to piss them off.

Don't you think pissing them off would make the situation worse?

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheGreenSadler

[Frank Brown]

 

There is no point in trying to win over the conservative politicians. The only way to appease them would be to "renounce" our same sex desires. Pride parades may not get them on our side, but it's an excellent way to piss them off.

Don't you think pissing them off would make the situation worse?

 

 

I don't think you can get much worse than "God hates fags."

[I cucked Alex Jones]

No.

 

My goal in life isn't to make others around me comfortable with my sexuality. If they have a problem with who I am, they can f*ck right off. I'm not going to live my life as a diplomat to 1200 AD.

[Cyper]

Well, discussing with conservative people that base their view on the world on religion, e.i superstition, is pointless. Because you can justify anything with faith, because faith does not require neither rationality or evidence. That makes you totally immune towards any arguments against your belief because no matter what you can state ''U WRONG, BECOZ MUH FAITH!''

Edited February 27, 2014 by Cyper

[Misbegotten cad]

Here is something historically interesting:

 

In the Russian Orthodox Church, they used to marry monks with monks.

 

And then these monks would live together as a married couples, on monastery grounds.

 

So, in Russian monasteries, gay marriages were commonplace amongs the monks.

 

There are actual written records of these marriages, so I am not making this up!!!!!

 

Mind you, the do not allow this sort of thing anymore in russia. Furthermore, church authorities in Russia claim that these marriages were only spiritual in nature. So, while the marriage was of two men, the blokes did not engage in coitus, just lived together in spiritual marriage.

-Well, they would say that! But we know better, eh. They were gay marriages, through and through!!!

 

Imagine that!

[Doc Rikowski]

http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-says-ceo-resigns-amid-gay-marriage-controversy-195338477.html;_ylt=AwrBEiT.yT1TKDYAllnQtDMD

What you guys think about this?
I'm in favor of gay marriage but isn't this a case of ostracism towards someone legitimately having a different opinion?
When it comes to opinions shouldn't we follow the principle of this quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Edited April 4, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[Frank Brown]

http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-says-ceo-resigns-amid-gay-marriage-controversy-195338477.html;_ylt=AwrBEiT.yT1TKDYAllnQtDMD

 

What you guys think about this?

I'm in favor of gay marriage but isn't this a case of ostracism towards someone legitimately having a different opinion?

When it comes to opinions shouldn't we follow the principle of this quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

Not at all.

 

He wasn't forced to resign, but it was probably in the business' best interest to no longer have him around. It wasn't defamation as the accusations were true. If someone supports racial segregation and donates to causes which actively fight legal equality, you're well within your right to stop using the service(s) provided by the business as well as tell your friends/family to do the same. What the owner does after the fact is up to them.

[Mr. House]

Suggesting ostracism of homophobes is a bad thing.

[sivispacem]

It's not simply a case of having a view on a subject. He financially supported organisations whose sole purpose is to attenpt to limit the rights of others based purely on their sexuality. That's exactly the kind of thing that people should be pressured into resigning over.

[Frank Brown]

It's not simply a case of having a view on a subject. He financially supported organisations whose sole purpose is to attenpt to limit the rights of others based purely on their sexuality. That's exactly the kind of thing that people should be pressured into resigning over.

 

I think even if he didn't financially support the organization people still have the right to boycott him. The financial transaction just made it a thousand times easier for people to get behind the boycott.

[Doc Rikowski]

I think that since gay marriage is still not world widely accepted/legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg)

and certainly not accepted in the hearts and minds of many, we cannot just dismiss the opinion of who's against it as homophobe or not worthy of respect.

I'm in favor of gay marriage but I respect whoever has a different opinion on it cause it is a legitimate opinion.

If we start to be intolerant against who opposes our opinions in a civilized way, we cannot expect tolerance towards our own opinions.

The boycott may be a legitimate move, I do not oppose to that but overall what this man's job had to do with his ideas?

Nothing imho.

If all the people with a different opinion on gay marriage or on other controversial subjects had to resign or quit his job we'd end with half the work force unemployed.

[CatDog96]

I hate homosapiens and I would rather live in a world without them, they're the worst thing to ever happen to the planet.

[Frank Brown]

I think that since gay marriage is still not world widely accepted/legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg)

and certainly not accepted in the hearts and minds of many, we cannot just dismiss the opinion of who's against it as homophobe or not worthy of respect.

 

Yeaaaaah... you can.

 

Anyone who wishes to deny someone else equal protection under the law deserves to have their opinion disrespected. I respect the religious beliefs of others if they choose not to do x (which isn't harming anyone), but that doesn't mean I can't tell them to go f*ck themselves if they try to tell me I can't do x.

 

If we start to be intolerant against who opposes our opinions in a civilized way, we cannot expect tolerance towards our own opinions.

 

They're being tolerated. No one is forcing them to give up their opinions nor is anyone trying to.

 

 

The boycott may be a legitimate move, I do not oppose to that but overall what this man's job had to do with his ideas?

Nothing imho.

If all the people with a different opinion on gay marriage or on other controversial subjects had to resign or quit his job we'd end with half the work force unemployed.

 

You say oppress as if this man was forced to donate to the Prop 8 organization. Again, he was not forced to leave his position. He was not oppressed in any way, shape or form.

 

 

Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company's web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.

 

This was merely users of a service deciding not to use said service anymore because the owner is a bigot. If the bagel store's owner on the corner started saying he hated [insert group of people here] and started lobbying to prevent [insert group of people here] from doing something that doesn't effect them, I'd boycott them too.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Vlynor

[Doc Rikowski]

Extremism doesn't solve things nor helps any cause.

It's a complex subject and generalizations do not help understanding it.

 

He wasn't forced but he had to step down for the good of the company.

Peer pressure? Company pressure? Certainly it isn't something he really wanted to do.

In my opinion this whole incident will cause more harm to the gay marriage cause than benefit.

You fight opinions with other opinions or with the right attitude.

 

And still, his job had nothing to do with his ideas or actions outside his workplace.

That should be a fundamental right (to believe in or support any legitimate cause as long as they do not interfere with your job) just as gay marriage is one.

[Otter]

A boycott isn't extremism, it's common bloody sense. I fail to find sympathy for a rich bastard who's being forced out of his job because he used the bloated gains of said job to support discrimination.

 

Gay rights aren't an 'opinion'. Either you support gay marriage, or you're an outmoded piece of garbage who's going to be the villain in a Disney movie twenty years from now.

 

If you are the face of a giant corporation, you can't be a dickbag. I worked for Molson for a while - do you think I took a lot of selfies drinking Heineken? Some things, beyond human decency, are common f*ckin sense. So again, I can't shed a tear for this bloody terrorist.

[sivispacem]

Plus, as I've already pointed out, we aren't talking about belief. We're talking about a public figure who made the voluntary choice to provide overt financial and personal support to organisations that seek to limit the rights of homosexuals. That's acting on beliefs- ie direct complicity in discrimination.

[Punisher.]

Extremism doesn't solve things nor helps any cause.

It's a complex subject and generalizations do not help understanding it.

 

He wasn't forced but he had to step down for the good of the company.

Peer pressure? Company pressure? Certainly it isn't something he really wanted to do.

In my opinion this whole incident will cause more harm to the gay marriage cause than benefit.

You fight opinions with other opinions or with the right attitude.

 

And still, his job had nothing to do with his ideas or actions outside his workplace.

That should be a fundamental right (to believe in or support any legitimate cause as long as they do not interfere with your job) just as gay marriage is one.

 

It's liberal bigotry, but it will never get seriously addressed politically in today's world, for fear of appearing as though you condone any form of prejudice. I hate to see someone religious get labelled as homophobic or bigotted, when they have a difference of opinion, as people we never agree on all things, but true acceptance and equality will only come IF, all opinions are respected, and if an opinion is morally wrong which in this case it is in my opinion (marriage for anyone, if man loves man, or woman loves woman, the love is what's important, not the anatomy) it should be countered with stronger opinion and a good moral attitude. For only in true liberalism, is freedom for all opinions allowable.

[Otter]

Freedom of opinion, whatever that is, won't ever protect someone's job. If he were funneling funds into the KKK, nobody would be squawking about the man's freedoms here.

[Doc Rikowski]

I mentioned extremism related to dismissing a different and legitimate opinion, not about the boycott.

 

I don't know if he's completely against any kind of gay civil union or if he's just against the gay marriage institution.

He doesn't seem an anti-gay extremist or an homophobic to me. He's entitled to an opinion as much as we can disagree with it.

 

Also, I have no sympathy for him cause I do not share his views but I can't see any relation between his political views and his competence on the job.

If he had discriminated someone on his workplace then it would be a whole different thing but in this case we are stepping into the area of personal beliefs.

 

If the situation in California was that a vote was going to be cast on the subject of gay marriage then financially supporting one of the two sides I suppose was not illegal.

 

You can despise his views as much as you wish and judge him as much as you want.

And I can even totally agree with you on how wrong his ideas might be in today's world.

But it doesn't change the fact though that by doing so you are acting in the same intolerant way some anti-gay activists do.

And that helps not the cause imo. It just creates two parties that hate each other.

 

Let's not forget a lot of people share his views and not all of them are bigots.

Maybe they just need more information and dialogue rather than despiteful dismissal of their opinions.

[Otter]

That's apologist bullsh*t, though. There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of reprehensible ideas. I am intolerant of racism. I am intolerant of male chauvinism. There's nothing inherently wrong with not tolerating sh*t which is clearly wrong. Sivi is probably better equipped to pinpoint what logical fallacy you're using here, but it's a doozy.

 

 

"He's entitled to an opinion"

Sure. But he's not entitled to keep his job because of it.

[Doc Rikowski]

If we are talking about being intolerant of a clear feeling/attitude of hate and discrimination, as racism, chauvinism and homophobia then I completely agree with you.

 

But is this the case?

I don't know enough about the person and his full views to express a final opinion on him.

As a principle though, before labelling someone as bearer of a reprehensible idea, we should know more about him, maybe talk/listen more to the person.

 

Is being against gay marriage and being an anti-gay extremist the same thing?

That is the question in my opinion.

Cause a generalised opinion has usually different degrees and shades.

Among who's against gay marriage you will find the religious extremist wearing an insulting t-shirt

and you will find someone that possibly is not against a civil gay union with the same rights and duties of a marriage, but that is against gay marriage per se.

 

If you treat all people the same then you move the most moderate ones towards extremism rather than towards a peaceful exchange of views that could benefit everyone and that would isolate extremists.

 

As for the job part, well, that's really up to the parts in this case.

[Otter]

Being against gay marriage is reprehensible. This is what I'm saying.

[Mr. House]

Being 'intolerant' of bigoted racist ideology is not comparable in the slightest to actual intolerance and bigotry towards gays, blacks, jews, whatever.

[Punisher.]

Being 'intolerant' of bigoted racist ideology is not comparable in the slightest to actual intolerance and bigotry towards gays, blacks, jews, whatever.

 

Not sure what your point is there?

 

There's a big difference between being bigoted and opposed to homosexuality and having an opinion on marriage, and then being persecuted for that opinion. There's certainly a reprehensibility about opposing people's rights to marry, but it could be argued equally that non tolerance and persecution towards people for having a belief in the sacrilege of 'marriage' is also wrong to a degree, especially if they are automatically labelled as 'homophobic' or 'bigoted' for theirs views regarding marriage.