As Opera is Norwegian company and the founders are also Norwegian we might not hear about it because Norway is quite a tolerant society so long as you keep yourself to yourself.
No goalposts have been moved. You simply missed the goal. Perhaps you misinterpret bigotry as well. Your examples simply donât add up. Any amount of Gish Galloping wonât change that. The examples were supposed to exclude bigotry and be LGBT persons who are against SSM. Aside from the fact that one is a married gay man and the other is a bigot the point remains that neither of these gentlemen were speaking about SSM in the US. Whether Elton was happy in his civil union before he married is highly irrelevant. Also it is irrelevant whether California has civil unions as the push for SSM in California is part of a larger national movement for LGBT civil rights.
Again , Iâll say it . Christians donât own the concept of marriage. Believing that christian marriage is is the only valid marriage is bigotry. Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry (even more so). I was married by a swinging atheist judge with no mention of Christ and I am atheist. The last thing we all need is bigots like this telling me my marriage is invalid as well.
âFreedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.â -JFK
4 Likes
Well, thereâs your problemâŚin a nutshellâŚThe LBGT community by and large doesnât care what yâall do inside church walls. The church as a whole does cares what the LGBT community does outside its walls. That, my friend, is bigotry. If the churches were only concerned with the SSM inside the church this wouldnât be an issue.
4 Likes
The âtraditionalâ Christian standard for marriage would include such things as child brides, secondary status for any additional wives after the first one, concubines, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, etc.
Personally, I donât want that to equal marriage for ANYONE.
5 Likes
I agree with you. Lest we forget, President Obama had publicly stated that he was against gay marriage in 2008. (look it up)
Should we ask him to step down? Andrew Sullivan is right. This is a sickening display of intolerance that will push the gay community back in the eyes of the rest of the nation. They just ran a good man out on a rail for a transgression from 6 years ago.
Itâs probably best not to listen to Brian Sewell on anything except art. And even thenâŚ
4 Likes
Elton John was talking specifically about prop 8 at the time, but his views have since changed. I donât think much of Brian Sewellâs views, and said as much whenever I mentioned them. I donât think they meet Wikipediaâs definition of bigotry in any case: he is arguing that homosexual relationships do not fit the current model of marriage and it is not right to reinvent marriage to suit LGBT couples. There are many pressures to redefine marriage to include different groups and practices, conservatives like Brian Sewell will often focus on historical president and accepted cultural beliefs to challenge these.
If what youâre really looking for is an American gay/lesbian who disagrees with SSM based on arguments that you canât argue with, that is moving the goalposts and I will never find that person. If you feel that opposing gay marriage in itself is bigoted, itâs pretty pointless to try to find examples to disprove that theory. I have never tried to convince you of peopleâs arguments or claim them as my own, but I want to understand people and resist calling those disagreeing with my views as bigots (especially when they show signs of open-mindedness otherwise).
These are all from a particular part of the old testament and are all more or less rejected as principles in the new testament. (The child brides one not specifically, but the age of maturity is not a fixed age that is accepted between cultures in any case. Itâs not explicitly supported either). Itâs perfectly possible to take the Bible seriously without applying these principles.
Talk about moving goalposts⌠When you claim there are reasons other than bigotry for someone to be against SSM and your two examples areâŚ
- a gay married man (obviously NOT against SSM)
- a bigot (Sewellâs article is the very definition of bigotry)
âŚyou have failed to even target the goal posts. Bigotry by any other name is still bigotry.
5 Likes
Well, if you are implying religion â if your religion says that a man canât marry another man, or a woman canât marry another woman â then to be honest, your religion kind of sucks.
Get a better, less intolerant religion.
6 Likes
Amen to that.
3 Likes
How utterly revealing. That says it all really. Modern Christians allow themselves to ignore all the parts of the Bible that are inconvenient for Christians because those verses are for or from a different time) but they refuse to ignore the parts (in the same books and chapters) regarding discrimination against people who make them uncomfortable. They refuse to ignore parts that are inconvenient for others. Itâs precisely this type hypocrisy that caused the word bigot to be coined.
And they wonder why we donât believe them when they say they love the sinner. Could they be any more obvious?
5 Likes
Or hereâs my radical idea: Quit trying to push your religion on other people.
I have this mad optimistic fantasy that Brendan Eich comes back from his time in the wilderness, and says:
âHey, everyone, Iâve thought about it some more. I still believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. But you know, youâre right that I should not have tried to force my religious belief on you by force of law, given that other people getting married canât harm me or my family in the slightest. So Iâve donated $1,500 to the Human Rights Campaign. I hope that we can put this ugly episode behind us.â
And my crazy fantasy is that everyone writes articles saying âSure, Brendan. Youâre free to hold whatever beliefs you like, and advocate for them in a spirit of honesty. The thing we found unacceptable was your spending money to fund dishonest advocacy ads and get a law passed which took away our rights.â
However, Iâm a lot more confident about the second part than the first part. Generally bigots get over it after they personally get to know some of the people they consider inferior. Eichâs worked with gay people for decades, so if heâs still a bigot now, heâs probably incurable.
5 Likes
If Wikipedia is correct, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Should they all be outed and forced to resign their jobs? If not, why just this one guy??
Just the CEOs of âtolerantâ and âprogressiveâ organizations. If you are the CEO of Chick-fil-a, proceed with the hatinâ.
5 Likes
The whole concept of sin is utter bullshit anyway.
1 Like
Political donations in California are public record. As you can see from the prop 8 donation numbers, most tech employees are socially liberal, so Brendan Eichâs viewpoint is relatively rare.
I assume that people who take a stance against same sex marriage lack empathy, or do not realize the numerous legal benefits that marriage provides; legal rights that most people never have to think about until it happens. (Child custody, next of kin, medical benefits etc.)
Brendan Eich was a terrible choice for CEO, especially when their participation guidelines are so inclusive. This should have been caught much earlier when he was being vetted. Mozilla trapped itself into a lose-lose situation. Had they protected Eich Mozilla would be viewed as anti-progressive (bigots), or as what happened when Eich was pressured to leave, some saw this as a liberal witch hunt.
Unfortunately, this probably just means that FFâs usage numbers will drop as users on both sides of the issue uninstall the browser in protest.
5 Likes
On comparing Eich losing his leadership with the spectre of firing all bigoted employees, we have this question and answers:
[quote=âchenille, post:165, topic:27668â]Taking actions against the rights of other people is not just a question of personal views, and incidentally it does affect Mozilla because he would not just be working for it but leading it, and has admitted it means he doesnât really fit with their mission.
âŚand in reply, more discussion of this as if it were about any employee with any unpopular opinion. What do you think it says nobody is willing to defend what this really was, a leader who had taken actions to hurt people that were contrary to his organizationâs mission?
[/quote]
[quote=âbardfinn, post:136, topic:27668â]
As CEO of Mozilla, he would have been tasked with exercising the overriding good faith of the fiduciary duty that a chief executive is expected to exercise â to put the goals and aims of the company before his own.[/quote]
An on why someone might want Eich gone without demanding Obamaâs resignation, at least over the same issue:
So, lolipop_jones, youâve brought up some points and theyâve been addressed. All in all, that would make for ok conversation, except for the minor detail that these are listed backwards: the answers were actually written long before your comments were.
7 Likes
i agree, as long as we recognize that these are generalizations not true of all people in either group., they hold true for the majority viewpoint and cores of each group. liberals go to great lengths to be inclusive, where conservatives are generally exclusionary (you can see this across the board, from gay rights, to immigration reform, to economic wealth disparity). liberals realize that there are many belief systems, cultures, schools of thought, economic classes, and no one group should be able to hijack civil liberties or rights or privileges exclusively for their group. liberals are trying to make things the best for everyone, that is their primary goal.
exactly right!!!
the point is that the traditional christian value of marriage completely changed and evolved at some point in history and needs to do so again. All the anti-gay stuff in the bible is from the same parts of ârejected principalsâ as the fâed up ideas of marriage, you know the same part that was cool with slavery, and though women were property, and that you should kill someone for eating shellfish or getting a tattoo. Bigots canât cherry pick which parts they discard and which parts they follow specially to discriminate against their fellow man.
@slickhead explains this well:
i agree, well said!
He was âon the fenceâ, not against, due to pressure from the conservative party, many of whom still hold these offensive beliefs among many other. He realized he was wrong and publicly apologized and has since pushed for gay rights. If he hadnât changed his stance then perhaps that conversation would be valid, but he did unlike Eich. Besides we couldnât get rid of most of the republicans on the same grounds, granted even a percentage of them have come forward and made public apologies because they realize how messed up the stance of their party on this issue is.
amen. haha.
3 Likes
So Christians can claim the stories of Adam & Eve, Noah, Moses, the Ten Commandments, the parts of Leviticus which apply to others rather than themselves, etc., but not the sections that might work against them? Hmmmm.
4 Likes
At the very least, you donât know what you are talkng about and in every other instance must be willfully ignorant of this subject because Eich has MOST CERTAINLY owned up to it:
âI know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to âshow, not tellâ; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.â
^But donât let that get in the way of running a guy out of town on a rail.
