• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]

tres borrachos said:
Thank you for the link, but I don't see anything in there that contradicts the Washington Post claim that 7 out of 10 blacks supported Prop 8, making them bigots. He says that "exit polls suggest" that 6.2 out of 10 were bigots instead of 7 out of 10.
Click to expand...

The point of all that is that support for Obama wasn't the reason Prop 8 passed. It wasn't so much black people as it was old people. Younger black people, younger people in general, and first-time voters (three of Obama's big demographics) vote by a large margin in favor of marriage equality. Prop 8 passed because of all the old people who voted for it, and older black people vote Democrat anyway and were always going to do so.

An important quote: " If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin."

And yes, I think people who take it upon themselves to vote against someone else's relationship are bigots. As a Minnesotan it was offensive that I was given this option in 2012. Who the hell am I to decide whether or not someone else's relationship is acceptable? Why is it my business? But let's call a spade a spade: the problem isn't black people, it's old people. Old people are against same-sex marriage more and they also vote more.

Or they did, anyway. That majority has, quite literally, died. All four votes on the issue went in favor of marriage equality in 2012. I don't expect any vote from here on out is going to go differently.
 
Grant said:
You should be held accountable for your opinions or suffer the consequences. Is that your point?
Click to expand...

No, because those two things are pretty much the same thing.

My point is that no man is an island and if a person's "free" political exercise has negative consequences on another, that other may do something to defend themselves. This is what happened. His actions ran the risk of hurting other people (and helped do that before a judge overturned that harm) and people who are hurt tend to want to defend themselves.
 
Grant said:
That would have been removing a right, not adding a right. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Your posts are simply devolving into incoherence at this point.
 
Cardinal said:
You are not qualified to participate in this discussion, though it's clear you will continue to do so anyway.
Click to expand...

Is it you who decides who is qualified or not? Are you the man from GLAAD? Am I about to lose my job?
 
Deuce said:
The point of all that is that support for Obama wasn't the reason Prop 8 passed. It wasn't so much black people as it was old people. Younger black people, younger people in general, and first-time voters (three of Obama's big demographics) vote by a large margin in favor of marriage equality. Prop 8 passed because of all the old people who voted for it, and older black people vote Democrat anyway and were always going to do so.

An important quote: " If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin."

And yes, I think people who take it upon themselves to vote against someone else's relationship are bigots. As a Minnesotan it was offensive that I was given this option in 2012. Who the hell am I to decide whether or not someone else's relationship is acceptable? Why is it my business? But let's call a spade a spade: the problem isn't black people, it's old people. Old people are against same-sex marriage more and they also vote more.

Or they did, anyway. That majority has, quite literally, died. All four votes on the issue went in favor of marriage equality in 2012. I don't expect any vote from here on out is going to go differently.
Click to expand...

The black people causing prop 8 to pass was good for a few yucks, but it was ultimately a false narrative. If you look at the actual demographics the largest contributing statistic wasn't race, or even old people, but religion.
 
tacomancer said:
No, because those two things are pretty much the same thing.

My point is that no man is an island and if a person's "free" political exercise has negative consequences on another, that other may do something to defend themselves. This is what happened. His actions ran the risk of hurting other people (and helped do that before a judge overturned that harm) and people who are hurt tend to want to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

The man donated $1000 to Proposition 8, and many other people did the same thing. How did this have negative consequences on anyone?
 
Grant said:
The man donated $1000 to Proposition 8, and many other people did the same thing. How did this have negative consequences on anyone?
Click to expand...

It helped facilitate a legal condition where people could not follow their hearts and personal belief in what their rights are (from the perspective of their morality).
 
Grant said:
Is it you who decides who is qualified or not? Are you the man from GLAAD? Am I about to lose my job?
Click to expand...

Since you don't even understand what rights are being denied to gay people, yes, you are unqualified to discuss this issue. If I were in your position I would make myself scarce instantly.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
It can be debated either point was "righteous". People have a right to hear both sides and decide if they support side A or B or neither. That's called living in a democracy.
Click to expand...

Of course people have a right to hear both sides. I was not saying that they don't or shouldn't.

What I was pointing out is that once people wrap themselves up in what they believe to be a righteous position, they tend not to listen to any additional information or the other side anymore. This is a behavior pattern exhibited on both sides of nearly any issue.
 
Cardinal said:
Since you don't even understand what rights are being denied to gay people, yes, you are unqualified to discuss this issue. If I were in your position I would make myself scarce instantly.
Click to expand...

Where did I make the claim that anyone should have their rights denied? Use the quote system and you'll follow the debate much better.
 
Grant said:
Where did I make the claim that anyone should have their rights denied? Use the quote system and you'll follow the debate much better.
Click to expand...

Cute twisting of words. You said that gay people aren't even having rights denied. It's that ignorance which makes you fundamentally unqualified to discuss this issue, when you should be using this time to research the topic instead.
 
Cardinal said:
Cute twisting of words. You said that gay people aren't even having rights denied. It's that ignorance which makes you fundamentally unqualified to discuss this issue, when you should be using this time to research the topic instead.
Click to expand...

Please start using the quote system.
 
Grant said:
Please start using the quote system.
Click to expand...

Do you or don't you believe that rights are being denied to gay people? I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify yourself here.
 
Fenton said:
I hope the Left keeps this up. What a great way to isolate and marginalize their agenda by pissing off a vast majority of Americans.

You would have thought they would have learned their lesson back when they attacked Phil Robertson.
Click to expand...

And Chick-fil-A.

I guess it goes back to that cliché that defines insanity as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.

The simple truth is that homosexuals will never be more than a very small, freakish minority, who can never rationally expect anything better than passive tolerance from society as a whole. Their recent effort to try to force society to redefine and alter some of its most essential institutions just to cater to them is not going to end well no matter how they conduct it; and as they engage in more and more antics such as this, which only antagonize mainstream society, they should expect that the tolerance that they now enjoy will be withdrawn.
 
Grant said:
You should be held accountable for your opinions or suffer the consequences. Is that your point?
Click to expand...

You might be confusing being held accountable with being punished
 
opendebate said:
You might be confusing being held accountable with being punished
Click to expand...

It seems that this man is being punished for his opinion. Many expect absolute conformity of opinions now and if that doesn't happen, you will lose your job. Will it get better from here, or worse?
 
Grant said:
Marriage between Gays is not a point of view its a change in long held laws, and everyone should have an opportunity to speak on any of these historical changes to any long held traditions and laws.
Click to expand...

It's more than just a change in laws. It represents an effort to radically alter and redefine one of the most essential institutions that is at the foundation of every stable human society, to the likely detriment of any society which accepts this alteration. All to cater to the will of a tiny minority of immoral perverts.
 
danarhea said:
I have a question to ask..... Why do some people here feel that giving unlimited amounts of corporation money to candidates should be considered free speech, but people choosing not to buy a product because it does not represent their political views is not free speech, but persecution?
Click to expand...

I'm straining my memory and I can't recall instances of corporations using their right to free speech to target one individual in the private sector and call for him to be destroyed. The issue isn't about having the right of free speech, it's how it's used.

I was just reading some commentary and, if it was correct, then it appears that it's perfectly legal to fire people for their political beliefs. We've long known that media and academia don't hire, block promotion and do fire on the basis of political beliefs but now the Left has blown away all their plausible deniability that this is a favored tactic. I'm damn sure that those normal people who didn't subscribe to 100% politicization of EVERYTHING (they're normal people after all, not Leftists) are now learning a lesson - eat or be eaten.
 
Grant said:
What rights are being denied Gay people??
Click to expand...

So you not only think they're not being denied rights, you don't even know what right is being discussed? Please tell me you're trolling and are not as ignorant as this.
 
RiverDad said:
I'm straining my memory and I can't recall instances of corporations using their right to free speech to target one individual in the private sector and call for him to be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Have you heard of gay people? It happens to them plenty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom