ChatterBank0 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
@ Brenden. OK, well thats your choice. Your commitment to a particular definition of marriage would be stronger than your commitment to a hypothetical gay family member who wanted marriage.
Can you show me where people are trying to gag free speech on this issue? Has anyone prevented you from printing your opinion here? Andrew Sullivan is entitled to his opinion, and perfectly entitled to print it - but it does not make him right.
If gay activists wish to organise a commercial boycott of a company or a service because of objections to a CEO or a particular ethos, they are perfectly at liberty to do so - in a capitalist democracy, you have every right to withdraw your custom. Similarly, religiously inspired activists could organise the same thing, should they so wish.
None of these actions represent moves to "gag" free speech- rather, they are the very expression of that liberal principle.
Can you show me where people are trying to gag free speech on this issue? Has anyone prevented you from printing your opinion here? Andrew Sullivan is entitled to his opinion, and perfectly entitled to print it - but it does not make him right.
If gay activists wish to organise a commercial boycott of a company or a service because of objections to a CEO or a particular ethos, they are perfectly at liberty to do so - in a capitalist democracy, you have every right to withdraw your custom. Similarly, religiously inspired activists could organise the same thing, should they so wish.
None of these actions represent moves to "gag" free speech- rather, they are the very expression of that liberal principle.
One Million Moms
Back in February One Million Moms asked for a replacement when the group found out that lesbian talk show host Ellen DeGeneres would be the new spokeswoman for JCPenney.
The group attacked the retail group once again for a lesbian family representation in a Mother's Day catalog photo.
In late February One Million Moms refocused its energy on Toys 'R' Us... temporarily. The group threatened to boycott the toy company for carrying the "controversial" Archie comics featuring a gay character, Kevin Keller, and a wedding.
In April the group returned to headlines, this time angered over a "lesbian" kiss between Urban Outfitters models.
In May the group continued its anti-gay agenda by attacking groundbreaking work by DC and Marvel Comics: featuring gay characters and weddings.
During the summer before NBC's The New Normal first aired, One Million Moms was already attacking it. In the post "The New Normal -- Not Normal" the group urged people to protest the show's airing.
Back in February One Million Moms asked for a replacement when the group found out that lesbian talk show host Ellen DeGeneres would be the new spokeswoman for JCPenney.
The group attacked the retail group once again for a lesbian family representation in a Mother's Day catalog photo.
In late February One Million Moms refocused its energy on Toys 'R' Us... temporarily. The group threatened to boycott the toy company for carrying the "controversial" Archie comics featuring a gay character, Kevin Keller, and a wedding.
In April the group returned to headlines, this time angered over a "lesbian" kiss between Urban Outfitters models.
In May the group continued its anti-gay agenda by attacking groundbreaking work by DC and Marvel Comics: featuring gay characters and weddings.
During the summer before NBC's The New Normal first aired, One Million Moms was already attacking it. In the post "The New Normal -- Not Normal" the group urged people to protest the show's airing.
So...that's just the AFA and alone Million Moms.
Why is it that these pressure groups with strongly anti-gay agendas should have freedom of speech and freedom to protest in what they believe in, but pro-gay advocacy groups are accused of stifling free speech?
I will offer a suggestion- it may be because those on the political right are guilty of hypocrisy.
The see one story - Brenden Eich, and forget that this is simply the latest casualty in the ongoing war between those who support gay rights and those who are against them.
It is sheer unadulterated hypocrisy.
Why is it that these pressure groups with strongly anti-gay agendas should have freedom of speech and freedom to protest in what they believe in, but pro-gay advocacy groups are accused of stifling free speech?
I will offer a suggestion- it may be because those on the political right are guilty of hypocrisy.
The see one story - Brenden Eich, and forget that this is simply the latest casualty in the ongoing war between those who support gay rights and those who are against them.
It is sheer unadulterated hypocrisy.
Yes LazyGun. Absolutely.
I doubt if I will get any valid argument against this...because everything I've posted regarding AFA and One Million Moms is true.
I could equally gather information about the Christian Institute. There are dozens of other right wing fundamentalist groups who equally lobby against gay rights...maybe more than dozens.
I doubt if I will get any valid argument against this...because everything I've posted regarding AFA and One Million Moms is true.
I could equally gather information about the Christian Institute. There are dozens of other right wing fundamentalist groups who equally lobby against gay rights...maybe more than dozens.
Not just in the context of this debate, but as a general trend, it's clear that people with strong opinions often view criticism of those opinions as an attempt to "gag" free speech, or some similar attitude, and say things like "I'm entitled to my opinion" or words to that effect. And then perhaps casually ignore the fact this sort of dismissal of an alternative opinion or refusal to debate the issue is far more of a suppression of freedom of speech than anything else.
It ought to be quite simple, really. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, and my opinion is that yours is wrong. In the case of a lot of the strongest-held opinions on this site, these alternate opinions can appear to be utterly wrong, based on complete misconceptions or outdated evidence, or even on no evidence at all.
This is one such case. There is no evidence to support the assertion that same-sex marriages will damage the institution in any significant way. At least in part this is because they've barely been around long enough for such evidence to exist even if they did turn out to be damaging to marriage as a whole. But more pertinently it's because there is nothing un-natural at all about homosexuality, and there is a whole world of evidence for that in the animal kingdom.
Describing homosexuality as a behavioural attitude is in some sense insulting, and derogatory, and damaging -- and wrong. Entitled to your opinion in that you may well be Clanad. I hope very much that you and others who share that view will, in time, come to see that it was the wrong opinion to hold.
It ought to be quite simple, really. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, and my opinion is that yours is wrong. In the case of a lot of the strongest-held opinions on this site, these alternate opinions can appear to be utterly wrong, based on complete misconceptions or outdated evidence, or even on no evidence at all.
This is one such case. There is no evidence to support the assertion that same-sex marriages will damage the institution in any significant way. At least in part this is because they've barely been around long enough for such evidence to exist even if they did turn out to be damaging to marriage as a whole. But more pertinently it's because there is nothing un-natural at all about homosexuality, and there is a whole world of evidence for that in the animal kingdom.
Describing homosexuality as a behavioural attitude is in some sense insulting, and derogatory, and damaging -- and wrong. Entitled to your opinion in that you may well be Clanad. I hope very much that you and others who share that view will, in time, come to see that it was the wrong opinion to hold.
Svejk
I've just seen your post at the top of the page.
No - I'm not saying that I want anyone to say that the AFA are wrong. I want those who attack those who have called for a boycott of Mozilla, to confirm whether they attack the AFA and One Million Moms.
Those who don't, are hypocrites.
So, where you YOU stand?
I've just seen your post at the top of the page.
No - I'm not saying that I want anyone to say that the AFA are wrong. I want those who attack those who have called for a boycott of Mozilla, to confirm whether they attack the AFA and One Million Moms.
Those who don't, are hypocrites.
So, where you YOU stand?
Brenden
I am not sure that the AFA make any real difference to the likelihood of the continuation of our species.
...you know, seeing as human beings seemed to have coped for a few millennia without them.
But getting back to the point in hand...do you think that if the AFA and One Million Moms should be free to express their opinion and boycott whoever, the same should hold true for those who have a pro-equality agenda, or not?
I am not sure that the AFA make any real difference to the likelihood of the continuation of our species.
...you know, seeing as human beings seemed to have coped for a few millennia without them.
But getting back to the point in hand...do you think that if the AFA and One Million Moms should be free to express their opinion and boycott whoever, the same should hold true for those who have a pro-equality agenda, or not?
@Brenden. Well, unless you think there are moves afoot by militant homosexual advocates to convert everyone to homosexuality, the reproductive future of humanity is assured. I have seen no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is becoming more frequent within the population, just a greater openness and acceptance of those who are.
Separated by 8 hours keeps one from staying engaged in a meaningful and obviously contentious subject discussion.
LG and SP, I commend you for your well spoken and source supported views concerning boycotts by AFA and other right wing leaning organizations. When one is on the receiving end of such boorishness, it's natural (no pun intended) to focus on the faults of the "other" side. So be it. But… a word of caution... for each example so cited by those being opposed, equally offensive actions by the militant homosexuals, such as Bash Back! which invades churches and church services looking all the world like terrorists can be reviewed. Each side sees it's views being threatened and lashes out.
But… the homosexual agenda has seen, for whatever reasons, terrific support from the entertainment and political segments of society (at least here in the U.S.) resulting in a level of agenda pursuit that produces the actions seen in the original question from AOG that makes this thread so lively.
Look, I'm in aviation, and from time to time our flight attendants call on the intercom about a couple 'making out' and getting carried away in their public display of inappropriate (as to time and place) actions. I tell the FA to tell them to cease and desist and if they won't, we call ahead and have the local gendarmes waiting to take them into custody. Following that, if it becomes necessary to call airport police, 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.
I'm the first say this type of action probably isn't indicative of most homosexuals, but it does happen.
Finally, a website there in the UK, named Spiked has a very insightful opinion on the matter, saying: "...The ‘born this way’ argument completely erases the human social world. It ignores the fact that homosexual behaviour has taken on many forms throughout history and through different societies. It downplays our ability to control our own lives, or our ability to reshape our society. It views people (ironically, gays in particular) as unthinking beasts, slaves to their nature-given desires. And, as such, it chimes with the deterministic temper of our times. It suggests that we are fated to be who we are, that we have no capacity for self-determination.
For a young person experiencing homosexual desire for the first time, to want to blame it on nature is perhaps understandable in the face of a society in which being gay can still carry risks and condemnation. But to make that reaction to fear a cornerstone of a rights movement is wrongheaded - it is our duty to demand something more; to try to shape a society in which people can and do experience their sexuality as choices freely made, rather than burdens foisted upon them.
To point at a ‘gay’ animal as proof that being gay is okay is demeaning. It takes a whole gamut of profoundly human emotion and experience, it takes the love one can have for another person of the same sex, and reduces it to the level of a rutting beast. What’s positive about that?"
You and I both know that science is divided on true homosexuality being seen in nature… so were not likely to reach any agreement on that aspect...
LG and SP, I commend you for your well spoken and source supported views concerning boycotts by AFA and other right wing leaning organizations. When one is on the receiving end of such boorishness, it's natural (no pun intended) to focus on the faults of the "other" side. So be it. But… a word of caution... for each example so cited by those being opposed, equally offensive actions by the militant homosexuals, such as Bash Back! which invades churches and church services looking all the world like terrorists can be reviewed. Each side sees it's views being threatened and lashes out.
But… the homosexual agenda has seen, for whatever reasons, terrific support from the entertainment and political segments of society (at least here in the U.S.) resulting in a level of agenda pursuit that produces the actions seen in the original question from AOG that makes this thread so lively.
Look, I'm in aviation, and from time to time our flight attendants call on the intercom about a couple 'making out' and getting carried away in their public display of inappropriate (as to time and place) actions. I tell the FA to tell them to cease and desist and if they won't, we call ahead and have the local gendarmes waiting to take them into custody. Following that, if it becomes necessary to call airport police, 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.
I'm the first say this type of action probably isn't indicative of most homosexuals, but it does happen.
Finally, a website there in the UK, named Spiked has a very insightful opinion on the matter, saying: "...The ‘born this way’ argument completely erases the human social world. It ignores the fact that homosexual behaviour has taken on many forms throughout history and through different societies. It downplays our ability to control our own lives, or our ability to reshape our society. It views people (ironically, gays in particular) as unthinking beasts, slaves to their nature-given desires. And, as such, it chimes with the deterministic temper of our times. It suggests that we are fated to be who we are, that we have no capacity for self-determination.
For a young person experiencing homosexual desire for the first time, to want to blame it on nature is perhaps understandable in the face of a society in which being gay can still carry risks and condemnation. But to make that reaction to fear a cornerstone of a rights movement is wrongheaded - it is our duty to demand something more; to try to shape a society in which people can and do experience their sexuality as choices freely made, rather than burdens foisted upon them.
To point at a ‘gay’ animal as proof that being gay is okay is demeaning. It takes a whole gamut of profoundly human emotion and experience, it takes the love one can have for another person of the same sex, and reduces it to the level of a rutting beast. What’s positive about that?"
You and I both know that science is divided on true homosexuality being seen in nature… so were not likely to reach any agreement on that aspect...
Okay Clanad.
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with any of your points.
For a start the 'homosexual agenda' (also known as equal rights) is also supported by the majority of the public in the UK.
From the Daily Telegraph:
"Almost two thirds of the British public opposed same-sex relationships because they believed they were morally “wrong” 25 years ago.
But, according to the latest British Social Attitudes survey, only one in five people now disapproves of gay or lesbian relationships in principle."
http://
So, the 'terrific support' is not only from the entertainment and political classes...but from greengrocers, doctors, dinner ladies, architects, mums, dads, brothers, sisters, car dealers...etc etc.
I'm not sure what your story about the two chaps getting frisky on your flight is supposed to prove. Three weeks ago I was in Leeds on a stag do. I saw a couple (male and female) having sex in an alley way next to a mini cab office. Again - not indicative of anything really. I just bring it up because like your story, it doesn't mean that all young straight couples have sex stood up in the street at 2am surrounded by kebab detritus.
Regarding the theory of 'born this way'. I suggest that in the spectrum of sexuality, most people are born with a hard coded sexuality, but there are some who become attracted to the same sex during puberty.
It matters not a jot really.
Why would it?
The fact remains, there are many many well funded right wing conservative groups throughout the world who initiated the process of boycotting first who have the 'audacity' to treat their employees as equals.
This, I believe, is wrong...but it's their choice to act this way. And because they've been doing it for so many years (together with the Westboro Baptist Church), it's understandable that some will take it upon themselves to use the same tactics.
I doubt this is the best way to deal with those who have an anti-gay agenda, but as Billy Joel once sung, "We didn't start the fire..."
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with any of your points.
For a start the 'homosexual agenda' (also known as equal rights) is also supported by the majority of the public in the UK.
From the Daily Telegraph:
"Almost two thirds of the British public opposed same-sex relationships because they believed they were morally “wrong” 25 years ago.
But, according to the latest British Social Attitudes survey, only one in five people now disapproves of gay or lesbian relationships in principle."
http://
So, the 'terrific support' is not only from the entertainment and political classes...but from greengrocers, doctors, dinner ladies, architects, mums, dads, brothers, sisters, car dealers...etc etc.
I'm not sure what your story about the two chaps getting frisky on your flight is supposed to prove. Three weeks ago I was in Leeds on a stag do. I saw a couple (male and female) having sex in an alley way next to a mini cab office. Again - not indicative of anything really. I just bring it up because like your story, it doesn't mean that all young straight couples have sex stood up in the street at 2am surrounded by kebab detritus.
Regarding the theory of 'born this way'. I suggest that in the spectrum of sexuality, most people are born with a hard coded sexuality, but there are some who become attracted to the same sex during puberty.
It matters not a jot really.
Why would it?
The fact remains, there are many many well funded right wing conservative groups throughout the world who initiated the process of boycotting first who have the 'audacity' to treat their employees as equals.
This, I believe, is wrong...but it's their choice to act this way. And because they've been doing it for so many years (together with the Westboro Baptist Church), it's understandable that some will take it upon themselves to use the same tactics.
I doubt this is the best way to deal with those who have an anti-gay agenda, but as Billy Joel once sung, "We didn't start the fire..."
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.