Why must everything be permitted though? Why is that progressive, or why is progress automatically even the right thing.
People supporting this always say, uh it's 2014 how can you not support gay marriage, as if that changes anything.
Some people believe in absolute values, I mean, I have a lot of respect for for religious people in the current sociocultural climate.
There was a logical argument against race mixing, if it was important to you to preserve that - your racial identity, which is a real thing if people believe in it, science is irrelevant. Of wanting to preserve a cultural identity also.
There is a logical argument against gay marriage if marriage is important to you as an absolute, a religiously defined concept of the union between a man and woman. Religion doesn't change with modern fashion, it is the word of God. I'm not saying I believe it, but that's the dealio.
Rational arguments justified through irrational beliefs. There is nothing wrong with irrational beliefs you dinguses. And people only call them irrational because they aren't empiric.
What is a logical argument for gay marriage even? Equality? Progress?
It's just a modern fascination with secularism, a sort of forward looking thing where anything traditional or not based in empiricism is automatically bad and regressive.
You're all Ivans
But I do support gay marriage, since I don't have any of those values. Thanks world.
I'm not sure there was ever a 'give us gay marriage and we won't care about the whole prejudice thing' deal going on. The idea was that it wouldn't affect 'straight marriage' in its function.I am constantly told that gay marriage won't affect me, but as time goes on I see more and more examples of how this is not true.
If your contribution to the public discourse is that gay people are wrong for the way they are and that certain legislation should reflect that, then that's not really very 'live and let live', is it? That's 'fine, live: but we'll keep interfering'. It's very much a mark of a long history of inequality and privilege that people seem to be increasingly upset by the idea that there might be a backlash for what they dish out.They will not rest until all opposition is eliminated. If you oppose gay marriage or believe homosexuality is a sin, you will be chased out of the public discourse {...} Those of us that were told that we can just live and let live were lied to.
That only really works if you give real weight to the term 'redefining'. And that very much seemed as though it was a question based upon what you thought of the people (or their 'lifestyle' if you wish).Supporters of Prop 8, whether their ideas were unfounded or not, were opposed to redefining an existing social construct. {...} It really has nothing to do with the people, it's about the movement against a social construct they agree with.
I think it depends on the topic and what their feelings are. Certainly when it comes to homosexuality and the preceding civil rights movements I would say the evidence runs contrary to this: we've repeatedly seen things picking up a certain level of societal toxicity and somewhat diminishing as a result. There's been a short term polarising effect each time, but a gradual shift over the long term, accelerated by generational acceptance.Demonizing others because of how they feel on certain topics only reaffirms their positions, it doesn't convince them to change.
Brendan Eich resigns as Mozilla Corporation CEO
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/brendan-eich-resigns-as-mozilla-corporation-ceo/
If you're really gonna be that immature about this then I don't think I would personally want you there anyway.also this thread revealed that i'll never support /r/UnrealTournament, thanks twd
It doesn't really. I would define "marriage" as between a man and a woman, I guess. But I would also define marriage as "not a social construct". In other words, I don't think the government should have any say in, or control over, that aspect of a person's life. If two people decide to be married by whatever "power" or "authority" they want, more power to them.At the least it tells me how you’re “supposed” to feel.
If you feel otherwise, might I recommend a more generic religion?
For a lot of people, it has a lot of weight. To them, it's one of the fundamental building blocks of society (a core class, as it were). You can't really make an argument that the traditional social structure was defined as between a man and woman, so changing it is entirely a "redefinition" of the tradition.That only really works if you give real weight to the term 'redefining'. And that very much seemed as though it was a question based upon what you thought of the people (or their 'lifestyle' if you wish).
That shift doesn't happen by demonizing, though. That shift happens by making your presence known, and showing people that you are being treated unfairly. It doesn't come by intolerance and bigotry, revenging emotions just entrenches people further.I think it depends on the topic and what their feelings are. Certainly when it comes to homosexuality and the preceding civil rights movements I would say the evidence runs contrary to this: we've repeatedly seen things picking up a certain level of societal toxicity and somewhat diminishing as a result. There's been a short term polarising effect each time, but a gradual shift over the long term, accelerated by generational acceptance.
That blog post, while I believe it is true, I do find it sad that he believes so much in the "teachings" he so rigilously believes it to be true so it must be and he is so happy because of that. But that's like taking pills, placebo etc. And for me placebo effect hardly ever worked. Because I just won't fool myself.OK guys, here's a blog post of a Mormon revealing to everyone that he's gay and is happily (yes, happily) living with his wife.
http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html
It's a great post all around so I highly recommend everyone give it a read.
If you're really gonna be that immature about this then I don't think I would personally want you there anyway.
And finally, my browser choice does not equal my ethical stance. I thought some of you guys would be smart enough to figure that out by now.
I would hope anyone who boycotted Firefox also boycotts the entire internet, or at the very least removes everything from their noscript whitelist. Anyone who knows anything about Brendan Eich other than his terrible opinions will understand why.
ps if you boycotted firefox ur dum
*shrug* Would you call me drugged up? Don't worry about being honest with me. I can take it. A big reason why I follow the LDS religion is because the more I find out about it, the more sense it makes. (although that's not the biggest reason why, believe it or not)But even compared to that guy, you are way forcing and delusional yourself. At least he does live his religious drugged way and doesn't interfere with others in telling him its the universal truth.
More reading, which I'm sure TWD, Arnox and others who think like them won't even look at:
On Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla - by a "queer woman" (her own words)
Community and Diversity - by Brendan Eich himself
.