The End of Firefox

Reading page 7 now of this thread and I'm starting to believe I should sign this petition [MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION] keeps posting lol you guys need to take a chill pill, I've read like 20 set-ups for jokes here! I'm having a hard time not going back to each and posting a joking reply, lol...
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Third possibility: we're both not realist.
Yes, I forgot that one is obvious, but in general lines, one of us is closed to reality than the other.
 
One of the better arguments you have given in MO. So we are not in disagreement here. I believe a God could exist, just not one as described in the bible. Whether or not said god has humanities best interest at heart is a completely different discussion.

If God is the ground of existence...the casual links goes to a First Cause, than that First Cause is impossible not to exist. Not only that, but is what in philosophy is considered to be a metaphysical necessity, meaning that the respective First Cause is impossible not to exist not just in this actual world, but in any subset of possible worlds. In other words, that First Cause is really really something...Frightening something...
 
Reading page 7 now of this thread and I'm starting to believe I should sign this petition [MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION] keeps posting lol you guys need to take a chill pill, I've read like 20 set-ups for jokes here! I'm having a hard time not going back to each and posting a joking reply, lol...

Meh this is me with my chill pill already. You can tell by the distinct lack of buzz saw arms and chainsaw strapon plus the conspicuous absence of human giblets flying through the air.

But seriously though. I'm sticking my neck out too by engaging in this. It's not a one way thing. By criticizing I open myself to criticism, and as others defend their views I may defend mine. Equal opportunity.

I think it would be unfair to start something and not continue to back up my side of it, to just drop opinions and then run away when opposed.
 
If God is the ground of existence...the casual links goes to a First Cause, than that First Cause is impossible not to exist. Not only that, but is what in philosophy is considered to be a metaphysical necessity, meaning that the respective First Cause is impossible not to exist not just in this actual world, but in any subset of possible worlds. In other words, that First Cause is really really something...Frightening something...
Right.... now you are just fing with me right?
 
I don't like if a kid enters my property without asking. I don't hate trespassers or the kid, I just don't much like trespassing.
Exactly. For some is hard to understand!
 
Meh this is me with my chill pill already. You can tell by the distinct lack of buzz saw arms and chainsaw strapon plus the conspicuous absence of human giblets flying through the air.

But seriously though. I'm sticking my neck out too by engaging in this. It's not a one way thing. By criticizing I open myself to criticism, and as others defend their views I may defend mine. Equal opportunity.

I think it would be unfair to start something and not continue to back up my side of it, to just drop opinions and then run away when opposed.

Lol you have more patience than I will ever :P
 
So I finally caught up. Most of the arguing is done, which is good as I personally don't care to include myself in that. As far as the OP goes, or rather the idea of the homophobic CEO as I do not remember the OP from the 11 pages of reading I have just gone through, I never heard the CEO himself make a homophobic comment. I mean, I'm sure he did, right? The only thing I know about his is the OkCupid site disclaimer thing calling him a homophobe *shrug* that's all I know about him, and I'm actually gay. I should be way more into gay rights than you guys hahaha XP

I don't know... Ya know, if he did something horrible -the CEO- like help the Mormons try to push through prop 8 or something of the equivalent than yeah, I can agree with OkCupid's stance. Though as it is right now I've never heard a single thing about this CEO. Does anyone know what he did? How his stance on gays came to light? :/ I guess I could Google it... *sigh*
 
I just re-read the thread. I just realised I was the one who stired up the dust...well...eh...I'm the bad guy in this story too.:m083:
 
So I finally caught up. Most of the arguing is done, which is good as I personally don't care to include myself in that. As far as the OP goes, or rather the idea of the homophobic CEO as I do not remember the OP from the 11 pages of reading I have just gone through, I never heard the CEO himself make a homophobic comment. I mean, I'm sure he did, right? The only thing I know about his is the OkCupid site disclaimer thing calling him a homophobe *shrug* that's all I know about him, and I'm actually gay. I should be way more into gay rights than you guys hahaha XP

I don't know... Ya know, if he did something horrible -the CEO- like help the Mormons try to push through prop 8 or something of the equivalent than yeah, I can agree with OkCupid's stance. Though as it is right now I've never heard a single thing about this CEO. Does anyone know what he did? How his stance on gays came to light? :/ I guess I could Google it... *sigh*

Well he donated $1,000 to support prop 8. He's saying that this is private and has nothing to do with Mozilla as a company.

There's not much else because he's actually being relatively quiet about his stance, even going so far as to say that he's not going to even tell what it actually is.
 
Well he donated $1,000 to support prop 8. He's saying that this is private and has nothing to do with Mozilla as a company.

There's not much else because he's actually being relatively quiet about his stance, even going so far as to say that he's not going to even tell what it actually is.

I don't blame him for not telling anyone what his stance is. And $1000 sounds very little to be in support for prop 8... did they every find out the actual numbers the Mormon church fueled into that? The true amount, I wonder...

You know, I will say he's not making a huge deal of it as the Chick fil a lady (was she a lady?) did. And for that I think things are already better. I don't hate the CEO for giving prop 8 a thousand bucks. I may be gay, but the truth is I know nothing of the guy, not a single thing about him. And I really don't care to waste energy hating people I know nothing about, regardless of groups of people telling me to. If he acted the way the Chick fil a lady did (I'm just gonna call it a lady *shrug*) then I would be a little upset for the time I allowed myself to think about it, but that time would be short.

Point is I don't know him. He hasn't made any attempts -that I know of- to make my life worth any less than his. But besides all that, I stopped using Firefox a long while ago. It became very slow... I'm using chrome now *shrug* works rather nicely :P
 
I don't blame him for not telling anyone what his stance is. And $1000 sounds very little to be in support for prop 8... did they every find out the actual numbers the Mormon church fueled into that? The true amount, I wonder...

You know, I will say he's not making a huge deal of it as the Chick fil a lady (was she a lady?) did. And for that I think things are already better. I don't hate the CEO for giving prop 8 a thousand bucks. I may be gay, but the truth is I know nothing of the guy, not a single thing about him. And I really don't care to waste energy hating people I know nothing about, regardless of groups of people telling me to. If he acted the way the Chick fil a lady did (I'm just gonna call it a lady *shrug*) then I would be a little upset for the time I allowed myself to think about it, but that time would be short.

Point is I don't know him. He hasn't made any attempts -that I know of- to make my life worth any less than his. But besides all that, I stopped using Firefox a long while ago. It became very slow... I'm using chrome now *shrug* works rather nicely :P

Yeah. I don't agree with what he did but he doesn't seem to be taking it into Mozilla from what I can tell. I can't agree with spending any amount of money on that but honestly it probably made little difference. I don't begrudge him for that all too much.

What bugs me is the irony that being gay is legal but many refuse to legitimize what people are doing anyway. "You can do it but we're not going to sanction it!" and then it gets compared to zoophilia which is illegal in most states and is a felony in many, a severe felony in several with some max sentences being up to 20 years in prison.

I find that to be a bit waffling and two-faced. It's weak and half-assed.
 
Bad publicity is better then no publicity. Slick marketing Firefox.

if you are mad and talking about it, you've played right into their hands.
 
Yeah. I don't agree with what he did but he doesn't seem to be taking it into Mozilla from what I can tell. I can't agree with spending any amount of money on that but honestly it probably made little difference. I don't begrudge him for that all too much.

What bugs me is the irony that being gay is legal but many refuse to legitimize what people are doing anyway. "You can do it but we're not going to sanction it!" and then it gets compared to zoophilia which is illegal in most states and is a felony in many, a severe felony in several with some max sentences being up to 20 years in prison.

I find that to be a bit waffling and two-faced. It's weak and half-assed.

You know, with that little amount of money put forward on his part I more wonder if it was a kind of a political thing, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. I believe if he really wanted prop 8, he really believed in it himself, he would have put forward more money. I see it as the equivalent to putting a dollar in the salvation army pail with Santa ringing the bell, definitely not the same premise though it is still a kind of mindless thing when you pass by and toss in a couple of quarters. For such a little amount, I believe it was more to the side of mindless on his part. Doubt he much thought about it, or maybe even knew what it was as a lot of contravention surrounding prop 8 is that they hid their meaning behind the bill, which is why it was taken a second time.

As far as being legal to fuck the same sex but not being able to marry, sodomy is still illegal here in Texas. If a neighbor is having sex and they're having sex too loudly you can call the police to complain and if the police find that two men are having anal sex they can be put to jail. So in that it is not legal everywhere.

And the way that marriage is set up, yes, the church -any church/every church- plays a huge factor in what the country thinks marriage means and the laws behind it. But that's not for the reason people may think. It's not that every person is religious and they believe these iron clad ideals and/or choose to be ignorant, it's that every person -the biggest majority if not everyone entirely- has grown up either in a household or an environment that taught about one deity or the other, and every deity's teachings is that homosexuality is a sin or abnormal. Very few religions preach acceptance, and even fewer people follow those teachings. However, with that being said it is not that these people are cruel people out to hurt others and take away their rights, its just that this is how they grew up, this is their mindset and it will take some time to allow them to think, "Hey, gay people aren't so bad. I don't agree with their sex but I don't believe I should help take away their rights."

You will always have people who are so religious they think less of those who aren't in line with their beliefs. That we can fuck each other all we want but our love will never equal that of a man and a woman, and while that sounds more than a little ignorant to many they don't usually say that. They deflect, calling out bestiality and incest -though most religions have to be careful when calling out such things as the lot of them taught perversions at one time in history. For me though, I don't feel it is my job to yell absurdities to such people, demand they understand me and accept me. I know I use to as a teen, I also know it never got me very far. I believe very much in living vs preaching and arguing. And with this CEO, I don't see him preaching or arguing at all.
 
Why do people gay or straight need their relationship recognised by the state?

Because the state requires gay and straight people to prove their relationship.
 
............ it is not that these people are cruel people out to hurt others and take away their rights, its just that this is how they grew up, this is their mindset and it will take some time to allow them to think, "Hey, gay people aren't so bad. I don't agree with their sex but I don't believe I should help take away their rights." .

It also takes some pushing. The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website
 
[h=1]10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed[/h] [TABLE="class: contentpaneopen"]
[TR]
[TD] By TFP Student Action [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
Click "like" for TRUE marriage!


[Get the TFP newsletter for free]

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution


In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
.
 
Here are ten reasons supporting gay marriage, and for other leaders and citizens to follow his lead:


1.Discrimination frays the human spirit.
2.Making committed human connections is good for physical and mental health.
3.Forming families, traditional or not, is good for the soul.
4. Marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice and the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry







5. Homosexuality is a normal variant of adult sexuality; gay men and lesbians possess the same potential and desire for sustained loving and lasting relationships as heterosexuals, including loving and parenting children. This is supported by hard data, not just opinion

6. Discriminatory marriage laws deprive gay and lesbian couples of over 1000 federal rights and benefits
7. Deprivation of these benefits has demonstrable negative psychological and social impact on same sex couples, their children and families.
8. Change and adaptation make for a stronger and psychologically richer society
9. Same sex couples can teach heterosexual couples how couples in relationships lacking gender based power dynamics often solve problems and make decisions with more respect and mutuality.
10. Ending discrimination enhances the human spirit and makes all our lives better.
.
 
[h=3]Married Couples Live Longer[/h] Numerous studies have found that married individuals live longer than those who are single. Marriage is connected to both physical and emotional health, and the longer a couple stays together the more benefits they reap. Psychologists and public health experts have long debated the real reasons why married people live longer. Some believe that lifelong companionship offers the emotional and physical security and nurturing that humans need to thrive, and that only marriage can bring the type of commitment that will add 10-15 years to one's life. A recent study by Danish researchers demonstrates that men in same-sex marriage are living longer just like heterosexual married couples. Also, heterosexual individuals who marry several times throughout their lives have an increase in mortality rates, as do people in long-term dysfunctional relationships. This data proves that stability in a long-term relationship goes hand in hand with sound mental and emotional health regardless of one's sexual orientation, and marriage can only help to solidify an already stable relationship. So why deny an entire demographic the right to live longer and happier?

[h=3]2. All Committed Couples Should Have the Same Rights[/h] History has demonstrated that two people who are in love are going to be together, whether it is legal or not. How many couples have risked everything, including the wrath of their families, in order to be together? So what happens when you and your loved one commit to spending the rest of your lives together but receive no support from the government? Unfortunately, once you share a home, children, and a whole life together, things can get a little complicated. The difficulties faced by same-sex couples whose union remains unrecognized legally are numerous. A person can be denied the right to visit their life-partner in the hospital in cases of illness or accident, upon the death of a partner they can be denied the right to inherit the home in which they have lived jointly for decades, they are usually denied family rates for health and other types of insurance, and they can even be denied the right to visit their partner in jail. Same-sex couples are also denied visas for a foreign spouse, and in many cases they are denied the right to adopt children together. Consequently, same-sex couples have lost thousands of dollars due to the government’s refusal to support them. This is quite simply unjust. If the government is willing to bestow a plethora of benefits on heterosexual married couples, why shouldn’t all couples be granted the same rights and privileges?

[h=3]3. There Is No Good Reason Not To[/h] There are plenty of reasons not to support gay marriage, but as was mentioned above, none of these reasons are good! Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage are based on religious beliefs that have no basis in fact or logic. While everyone is entitled to their own belief system, legislation should not be determined by the blind faith of one segment of society, especially in a country that prides itself on the separation of church and state. One example of a completely unfounded reason for opposing gay marriage is that it is a violation of natural law. This assertion is based on the concept that sex itself is for the sole purpose of procreation, and that any sexual act not intended for this purpose is sin. However, if this were true then why would other species, including dolphins, also participate in recreational lovemaking, and why would homosexuality exist in over 15,000 species? Surely a phenomenon that is so widespread couldn’t violate the laws of nature. In fact, homosexuality is a part of nature just like sexuality is, a fact proven by brain scans that demonstrate real and natural differences between heterosexual and homosexual subjects. Perhaps most importantly, homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. So why not support the right of two people to be legally joined if there is no good reason not to do so?

[h=3]4. Most Americans Support Same Sex Marriage[/h] Even if none of the above stated reasons have succeeded in convincing you, if you believe that a democratic majority should count for something then you should support the recognition of same sex marriage in the United States. In a recent poll conducted by NBC/Wall Street Journal, 53% of respondents stated that they are in favor of gay and lesbian couples having the right to get married, and only 42% claimed to be opposed. Additionally, findings from the Pew Research Centre show that 70% of millennials support gay marriage. With these kinds of figures it is only a matter of time before politicians and law-makers are forced to listen up and recognize gay marriage in the United States. Let’s hope that is the case this week!
The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website
 
Back
Top