• 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]

It's this simple. I am actually arguing and pointing out removing the standard of marriage which one (LBGT community) wants and the other (straight community) wants to keep for themselves. Then replacing it with just plain old Civil Unions and stating the State (Government) will only recognize Civil Unions. For the part of my argument you aren't getting is Marriage won't exist as a legal accepted form of relationship. Only Civil Unions will.

yes i understand what you want perfectly and it changes nothing about the factual flaws of it.
What you want will not be equal. You will be forcing people to give up thier rights, and then provide them with somethign that is a lesser, no thanks
Im glad i could clear up your confusion
 
And Mozilla isn't a company that relies on emotional buy, rather anti-Microsoft Internet Explorer mentality.

which is inherently emotional.

It's more than an emotional buy issue. It's a performance and features decision, at least for my part, in that IE still doesn't work as fast a Firefox, and with the open ended add-in development environment with a rich set of additional features and capabilities that IE can't match. The market has produced a superior product to Microsoft's offerings.
 
It's more than an emotional buy issue. It's a performance and features decision, at least for my part, in that IE still doesn't work as fast a Firefox, and with the open ended add-in development environment with a rich set of additional features and capabilities that IE can't match. The market has produced a superior product to Microsoft's offerings.

the IE 11 rollout is horrible. a lot and i mean a lot fo plugins do not work with it and have not been updated to work with it and firefox or chrome work fine.
 
It's more than an emotional buy issue. It's a performance and features decision, at least for my part, in that IE still doesn't work as fast a Firefox, and with the open ended add-in development environment with a rich set of additional features and capabilities that IE can't match. The market has produced a superior product to Microsoft's offerings.

I've tried other OS's and still like MS, and much of their software, like the antivirus -MS Essentials but they've never got their browser or email right.
 
It doesn't matter when it was done, what matters is that it was done. Time doesn't change his adamant desire to deny a community their right. It's ridiculous that you think it should change things, that everyone should be like - "well it was so long ago let's just pretend it never happened." It did happen and it bit him in the ass 6 years later.

So this is the liberal tolerance for dissenting positions and opinions that we've heard so much about? :lamo
 
At the time it was far from an unpopular position, one that was shared by a number of prominent politicians as other public figures. Even Obama held that position until he 'evolved', whatever that is supposed to mean.

So? All through out history the majority acted in bigotry on various topics. Slavery, marriage(interracial), women - and then as time progressed people changed. It is possible to be a bigot and then not be one. It's matter of choice.

So now, it's perfectly acceptable to force a CEO to resign from the company he founded because he supported which has only recently become politically unpopular?

The CEO never stated that he regrets the donation. So as far as any one is concerned he is still convinced the homosexuals should be barred from marriage and thus he is still a bigot.

Which previously unpopular political positions have you held over the course of your life? Should you be forced to resign your position because you've held those previous positions? Is this the new standard of compliance to political correctness? Are you sure you want to be supporting this? Both now and into the future?

What do any of these questions have to do with anything? I freely admit to being human. I have acted out of bigotry in life I have suffered the consequences just like everyone else. I currently do not hold any bigoted views. I believe that as long as an individual is not acting to harm himself or others he should be free to live his life as he chooses with having to duck and doge legislation.
 
yes i understand what you want perfectly and it changes nothing about the factual flaws of it.
What you want will not be equal. You will be forcing people to give up thier rights, and then provide them with somethign that is a lesser, no thanks
Im glad i could clear up your confusion

It's not giving up a right. It's the same right under a different name so people don't get all bent out of shape about the word marriage. How hard is that for your to grasp?
 
So this is the liberal tolerance for dissenting positions and opinions that we've heard so much about? :lamo

The man hasn't changed his position or made it other wise known that he regrets participating in denying others rights. So why should he no longer be viewed as a bigot. What evidence do we have that he no longer wishes or holds the idea that Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?
 
I haven't participated in any thread discussing Obama. And knowing that you are a hateful, homophobic, and racist stormfront exile I don't really care to entertain any of your perceived injustices that you have seen in our president's stint in presidency.

You know these things? I'd say you've prejudged this person. So who's the bigot now?
 
So this is the liberal tolerance for dissenting positions and opinions that we've heard so much about? :lamo


I don't like opposition to SSM and think it's unfair. I also don't like long sentences for small amounts of MJ possession, but it's still a law. They've got to allow certain opinions to oppose their own beliefs or at least be tolerant if they want the same freedom. That's how they'll get SSM to legal status, not by being over sensitive to any view that's different.

SSM is most likely inevitable in all states, though it shouldn't start out with such a negative undercurrent.
 
1.)It's not giving up a right.
2.)It's the same right under a different name so people
3.)don't get all bent out of shape about the word marriage.
4.)How hard is that for your to grasp?

1.) correct you want to take it away by force
2.)civil unions arent equal to marriage nor can they magically be made equal
3. lmao nobody is bent out of shape im just pointing out the facts to you, What you suggest is impossible
4.) im not the one struggling with facts, you are

civil uninons are factually not equal to marriage :shrug:

getting rid of marriage and making everything civil unions wont make it equal.

Again im glad i could clear up your confusion
 
At the time it was far from an unpopular position, one that was shared by a number of prominent politicians as other public figures. Even Obama held that position until he 'evolved', whatever that is supposed to mean.

So now, it's perfectly acceptable to force a CEO to resign from the company he founded because he supported which has only recently become politically unpopular?

Which previously unpopular political positions have you held over the course of your life? Should you be forced to resign your position because you've held those previous positions? Is this the new standard of compliance to political correctness? Are you sure you want to be supporting this? Both now and into the future?

Side note: LGBT doesn't have broad base support for SSM. It's why every state that has held a vote on the matter has always voted to ban SSM.
 
So? All through out history the majority acted in bigotry on various topics. Slavery, marriage(interracial), women - and then as time progressed people changed. It is possible to be a bigot and then not be one. It's matter of choice.



The CEO never stated that he regrets the donation. So as far as any one is concerned he is still convinced the homosexuals should be barred from marriage and thus he is still a bigot.



What do any of these questions have to do with anything? I freely admit to being human. I have acted out of bigotry in life I have suffered the consequences just like everyone else. I currently do not hold any bigoted views. I believe that as long as an individual is not acting to harm himself or others he should be free to live his life as he chooses with having to duck and doge legislation.

You freely admit to being human, yet are unprepared to extend the same courtesy to Eich?
 
You know these things? I'd say you've prejudged this person. So who's the bigot now?

I do know these things. I have participated is many racially charged discussions with riverdad. Riverdad believes there is nothing wrong racially profiling Africans, because they belong to a group that is "tarnished by their own behavior". He believes if white people want to move away from blacks based on the premise that they have heard or seen other black people behave undesirably then that is ok. He also hates diversity, it bothers him that he has to deal with other cultures in his homeland. He is a white nationalist and would prefer that everyone be white.

I have also discussed with him sexuality and I have read his discussions. The most telling point he has made is that he is more convinced that Homosexuals suffer from a higher rate of depression not because Society is constantly shunning them but that depression is inherent in the homosexual mind without outside influence.
 
The man hasn't changed his position or made it other wise known that he regrets participating in denying others rights. So why should he no longer be viewed as a bigot. What evidence do we have that he no longer wishes or holds the idea that Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

What evidence do you have that he's a bigot? Can it be the LGBT friendly environment that nurtured and supported as a founder of Mozilla?
 
You freely admit to being human, yet are unprepared to extend the same courtesy to Eich?

If Eich apologizes for donating a 1000$ towards legislation that oppresses the rights of the lgbt then I would no longer think he is a bigot. He hasn't. He's made no comment. I'm sure he is angry that the gays have the nerve to be upset about his just reasoning for wanting to ban them from marriage. What evidence do we have that shows us he is no longer of that bigoted opinion?
 
Last edited:
What evidence do you have that he's a bigot? Can it be the LGBT friendly environment that nurtured and supported as a founder of Mozilla?

Donating towards a proposition who's sole purpose is to deny rights is bigotry.
 
So, you don't think he changed his mind. You think he covered his true feelings, for decades, just to unleash a fraud upon the American people when the time was right.

:screwy

I think Obama said what was expedient at the time both times.
 
What evidence do you have that he's a bigot? Can it be the LGBT friendly environment that nurtured and supported as a founder of Mozilla?

the definition of the word bigot makes him one.

in fact until there's NEW evidence showing he isnt theres no reason to think otherwise unless of course one wants to ignore evidence and definition of words.
Ill stick with the evidence, facts and definitions.
 
1.) correct you want to take it away by force
2.)civil unions arent equal to marriage nor can they magically be made equal
3. lmao nobody is bent out of shape im just pointing out the facts to you, What you suggest is impossible
4.) im not the one struggling with facts, you are

civil uninons are factually not equal to marriage :shrug:

getting rid of marriage and making everything civil unions wont make it equal.

Again im glad i could clear up your confusion
A point.

"Civil unions" Could, in theory, be made entirely equal to "marriages" in the legal sense - apart from having a different name, which might defeat the whole thing....

What you can't control is the non-legal aspect of things - even if you, legally, require that marriages be considered equal no matter what sex the two parties are, were, or will be...

Someone will disagree, and, at least informally, consider the two separate.

I will agree that creating something that is identical except for it's name means it's not identical, and infact I think doing so would reinforce separation between the two.


Now, if the state (in both the actual state and the federal sense) decided to rename all marriage documents and whatnot as "civil unions", that would be another thing entirely - everyone would be treated equally, so I wouldn't see an issue with it.


Edit: That was way more than 1 point, sorry.
 
It doesn't matter when it was done, what matters is that it was done. Time doesn't change his adamant desire to deny a community their right. It's ridiculous that you think it should change things, that everyone should be like - "well it was so long ago let's just pretend it never happened." It did happen and it bit him in the ass 6 years later.

It does matter. Are you calling for the impeachment of President Obama who held the same belief? That President Obama was running around California and Florida in 2008 supporting Prop 8 within the African-American and Hispanic Community. Nah.. but it was widely known and nobody went after him... wonder why?

Did anybody ask Eich if his opinion evolved? Nope, so it was a witch hunt which wasn't afforded to others who supported Prop 8, starting with the Democratic Party..
 
What do any of these questions have to do with anything? I freely admit to being human. I have acted out of bigotry in life I have suffered the consequences just like everyone else. I currently do not hold any bigoted views. I believe that as long as an individual is not acting to harm himself or others he should be free to live his life as he chooses with having to duck and doge legislation.

I hate to break it to you, but yes, you do. You support him losing his job because of him having a different opinion than you do. So, by your rules, you are a bigot.
 
Donating towards a proposition who's sole purpose is to deny rights is bigotry.

100% correct, by definition that is bigotry.

He didnt donate to a group that happens to be opposed to gay rights or gays or gays sex, the donation was made has a pledge to prop 8 which its whole purpose was to stop gay rights. That is factual bigotry.
 
Tolerant liberals....only tolerant as long you believe exactly what they believe. If you don't believe their agendas...inconsequentially....you don't deserve a job anymore, or a life, or even the right to vote. Shame on you for not being a puppet. /sarcasm.

I wish Eich stood up for himself and fought against the bullies...but I guess not everyone can take a stance against radicalism.
 
I do know these things. I have participated is many racially charged discussions with riverdad. Riverdad believes there is nothing wrong racially profiling Africans, because they belong to a group that is "tarnished by their own behavior". He believes if white people want to move away from blacks based on the premise that they have heard or seen other black people behave undesirably then that is ok. He also hates diversity, it bothers him that he has to deal with other cultures in his homeland. He is a white nationalist and would prefer that everyone be white.

I have also discussed with him sexuality and I have read his discussions. The most telling point he has made is that he is more convinced that Homosexuals suffer from a higher rate of depression not because Society is constantly shunning them but that depression is inherent in the homosexual mind without outside influence.

OK. This I wasn't party to, so I have no knowledge of them.

Summary:
Tarnished by their own behavior - yes
Whites deciding where they want to live - yes
I see no greater hating of diversity than those who claim that as their goal, as they generally don't accept diversity in opinion or position, and do all they can to promote theirs over all others
Homosexuals suffering from depression - no idea

As one would expect, some I'd agree with, and some I wouldn't. Seems to be more often the case than not.
 
Back
Top Bottom