but that aside all you have to do is factually explain how now using facts and LEGALITY. Ill wait.
dont forget about things like how a HUSBAND/WIFE become one person legally and cant testify against each other, also while you do that explain how you make the decades and decades of legal precedent concerning MARRIAGE apply to civil unions?
then lastly if it would be even possible to waste all that time and money and go through the whole process, WHY on god green earth would we do something so stupid and mentally retarded?
and why would this NOT be giving into to the bigots and discriminators?
what if when Obama became present he was told, good job, you won, but listen. Theres lots of people that dont want a black president. They have "deep feelings" about this. They feel its a very "sacred" thing and theres never been a black president before. SO since theres so much "tradition" we decided we just cant make you president. We cant use that "word" for you because it could hurt peoples feelings. SO we are going to call you the CEO of AMerica. Now of course youll have the same power as the president before you and hold the same office they did but we just cant call you president. But it will be equal "wink wink" Now eventhough many people before you were president and got that right you wont. Yull be among the first to go by this NEW title we simply made up cause well you are black and that hurts peoples feelings. This doesnt violate you rights . . . right?
sorry nobody buys that complete crock of **** lol
its not equal and i dont see how the legality is possible and nor would anybody buy it to be anything more then letting the bigots win.
Maybe women shouldnt be called bosses and CEOs etc when they got thier rights? we should have made up a NEW term
maybe minorities or more specifically in this county blacks shouldnt have been called persons in the legal sense when they got their rights, we should have made up a NEW term
Now im not attacking you cause im not saying you support this, im just asking you to back up your claim and support why it would even be tried and how anybody honest would think of it as anything more that a slap in the face to peoples rights.
Sorry while ill need proof its possible which i dont see how, i cant do nothing but laugh at the pure absurdity of intellectual dishonesty of it and people completely mock this idea for how mentally retarded it is lol
I'm saying his financial contribution is an extension of his opinion, and not an unethical or illegal act. It can easily be countered by similar contributions for SSM.Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that those who oppose his opinion should not be threatened by his financial contribution ?
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
What of the evidence of the culture that Eich lead and promoted at Mozilla? This counts for nothing in your opinion?
Sure, there are some people who would claim they changed word just so they could get away with not allowing "gay marriage" while still allowing it, under a different name.
It's a cop-out, really, but it would still technically be "equal rights". Then everyone could continue calling it "gay marriage" instead of "marriage", much like they will anyway.
You can't legislate thought, but that's beside the point.
I'd accept changing all "marriage" documents to "civil unions" if it meant gay people could get married in the legal sense. Which is the only thing that can be moderated legally in any case.
Insisting on the use of the word marriage seems kinda ironic though, when one of the "arguments" against same-sex marriage is that the word doesn't mean that. "words mean things, etc, etc., and all that bs".
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken
2.) so it was HIM who designed/wrote and enforced this LGBT friendly policies and atmosphere Mozilla?
also what did they involve?
did they only exist because of him or were they in place before him?
are these policies just in accordance to LAW?
please answer these questions
3.) nope not "fair" just going by FACTS, fair has nothing to do with it
until there's new facts and evidence why would i ASSUME differently?
4.) no it counts for absolutely nothing LMAO why would it
again back to the culture/policies unless his idea, he wrote it, made sure it was enforced, didnt excist before he got there and it wasnt inspired by law and rights that already exist.
if that happen THEN ill change my opinion
say a cop is a bigot against <insert group here> and he donated money to not grant them rights or to a hate group against them or was leader of a hate group against women or blacks or Christians etc etc
while he was a cop he never unjustly arrested one of said group and followed the law and practiced god job duties
whould that stop him from being a bigot?
so as soon as you have something that shows he isnt ill stick with facts and definitions