The End of Firefox

[Lark]

Why people assume always is anti-gay... hate? Why the word 'hate'?

Anyway, its amazing to me the support for the gay relationships in power circles.

Compared to other movements, like the feminist movement, or the fight against slavery, against racism...those were alot more hard to get. With gay movement, its like something almost magic is happening. Things just happen, slowly, but with power and certainty.

I certainly would agree with that, hate is incredibly strong affect, besides love I cant think of any other emotional state which would move human beings quite the same. Similarly a phobic response is a strong and abnormal response to something too. No one would, usually, assume that someone who has a political objection to redistribution of wealth or benefits being paid has a phobic aversion to destitute individuals or people of a lower social class for instance. I think there's also something generally wrong with doing so, a lot of everyday opinion and behaviour is pathologised and I think that's part of a closing of peoples minds which I think is unhealthy. Totally in keeping with the sort of self-imposition or self-censor Orwell talked about being operative in totalitarian societies or movements.

The elites adoption of homosexuality as a political cause is interesting to speculate as to why, but ultimately I suspect it as acceptable to them because "equality as uniformity" or "equality as sameness" is the most basic and reductive version of equality, if this conception of equality is the only conception the equality as redistribution of wealthy or complex equality which requires diversity, difference and something more than "like treatment" wont creep in and threaten things. In terms of fiscal consequences it doesnt mean or carry much "threat".

Many of the detractors or conscientious objectors to political homosexuality are also ethical or cultural camps which are not easy to co-opt into fiscal conservatism, anyone who is going to express opinions which will deprive them of earnings, employment, business ownership and income revenue because they are compelled by conscience or honesty to do so are rarer and rarer but not that far removed from the people who at another time and in another context organised trade unions, joined in agitation and challenged servility and conformity to the power of money.

 

[Lark]

I am talking about affording homosexuals equal protection under the law. I think you are talking about something else.


The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website

I dont believe you are, its not as simple as that, you clearly conceive of yourself as being on some valourised mission while those who dont appear to share your opinions are villified as full of hatred, phobic compulsions etc. You sent me a PM suggesting that I "calm down newbie" which I considered an exercise in psychological projection.

The affording of equal legal rights is pretty plain and simple a matter, it was achieved in the UK with civil partnerships, which I was fine with but unsurprisingly this did not suffice, even the noteable celebrities which initially supported this settlement such as Elton John became convinced that this was a "second class" and not simply a due recognition of a different kind of relationship.

What is wrong with that difference? I mean surely there is a difference, individuals attracted to the same sex ARE homosexuals after all and NOT heterosexuals, so why reframe and redesignate social conventions and institutions in the manner in which the "marriage" "equality" agenda mandates? The only possible rationale for this that I can detect is the pursuit of parity or hegemony, why do so? The majority of people are heterosexual and always have been, there is every likelihood that they always will be, so why attempt to change the public culture and social institutions which underpin or serve this? It is only likely to confuse or harm heterosexuals in the manner in which homosexuals have suggested living in a culturally heterosexual society has, so it becomes a matter of "we have suffered, you should suffer, we'll all suffer together", which I dont believe is a good thing as I'm in favour of dispensing with avoidable suffering.

The other possibility, which I mentioned already, is that of seeking to validate homosexuality, I would question whether that is possible or the sort of thing which is encourageable or a role for government or power politics at all. Its only likely to be divisive. It is absurd when you use examples other than homosexuality, for instance wheel chair users, should everyone use a wheel chair to validate wheel chair use?

I dont believe these sorts of questions enter into the thinking around these topics very much and that is a shame. We are talking about changes which are no small things and could have major consequences for generations to come. Implicit in it all is that future generations will not be able to grow up and live as the present or past generations did and that is a major thing to think about depriving someone of. I certainly wouldnt question the best intentions and hopes, even dreams, of those involved in the advocacy I find questionable but they have not thought things through. In the main they feel no need to analysis and persuade, just legislate and coerce.

 

[Lark]

I am sorry sir, you are mistaken. I also beg your forgiveness If I have offended you by disagreeing with you (at least I think I do, your verbiage is hard for me to follow). I retracted my thumbs down.

I for one am not going to do everyday commerce with homophobic entities.

on that note.....thank you for your comments and sharing your feelings here.

I'm not surprised that you find reading my posts confusing. Although seeking to try for laughs is poor show.

Its good that you've posted, in doing so you've represented what I think is typical of persons advocating the politics you do. Which is highly problematic but I know you're going to think about this and maybe with the passage of time reach some sort fo clarity.

 

[cvp12gh5]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
You just compared same sex relationships to bestiality. Along with that, strong disapproval has been voiced against s.s. couples being able to join in the bonds of matrimony, so, I believe it's safe to say that you and Lark "passionately dislike" the idea of homosexuality and the thought of them having legal rights under the laws of marriage. The definition of hate is "to passionately or intensely dislike someone or something." So I'm pretty sure that the word "hateful" was used appropriately.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, but others are also entitled to look at it as hate speech. And I think it's wonderful that the gay movement is moving forward the way it is. When people work together for peace, love and understand, things get done. Progress is wonderful.

I could never imagine telling another individual who they should love/marry and what they should do with their private parts. It's none of my business and it shouldn't be the governments either. Love is sacred....whether it's between man/man, woman/woman, or man/woman, and it should all be honored in the eyes of god if that couple chooses so.

 

[Lark]

I think I allowed myself to get a little sidetracked here.

Lets just get this right.

The discussion is whether or not someone who may be perfectly good as a business exec providing a service for IT users should be subject to economic reprimand because of supposed or possible private opinions?

Really?

Does this stop at homosexuality?

Maybe they dont practice the same religion as pundits online? Maybe they support different sports teams? Prefer a different flavour of ice cream? Maybe they like a different Game of Thones character.

I think this is ridiculous, why would you want to try and damage Firefox over the head of this if it is perfectly good at what it is designed to do? How does anyone know this whole thing wasnt kicked off by some programmers from a rival service or an attempt to ridicule gay rights campaigners by demonstrating how easily raised to irrational, knee jerk campaigning they are.

Anyone remember the opinions bandied about at the time of the Chick-Fil-A stuff.

 

[Lark]

@LucyJr
You just compared same sex relationships to bestiality. Along with that, strong disapproval has been voiced against s.s. couples being able to join in the bonds of matrimony, so, I believe it's safe to say that you and Lark "passionately dislike" the idea of homosexuality and the thought of them having legal rights under the laws of marriage. The definition of hate is "to passionately or intensely dislike someone or something." So I'm pretty sure that the word "hateful" was used appropriately.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, but others are also entitled to look at it as hate speech. And I think it's wonderful that the gay movement is moving forward the way it is. When people work together for peace, love and understand, things get done. Progress is wonderful.

I could never imagine telling another individual who they should love/marry and what they should do with their private parts. It's none of my business and it shouldn't be the governments either. Love is sacred....whether it's between man/man, woman/woman, or man/woman, and it should all be honored in the eyes of god if that couple chooses so.

I dont hate or dislike homosexuals or homosexuality, I'm pretty indifferent to each, people can do what they like. I dont pretend to understand it and I think its bizarre behaviour but then I dont really expect homosexuals to feel any differently about heterosexuality themselves.

What I do hate is people seeking to act like the thought police and wreck social institutions for future generations.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
You just compared same sex relationships to bestiality.

I'm not. I was just being ironic.

Along with that, strong disapproval has been voiced against s.s. couples being able to join in the bonds of matrimony, so, I believe it's safe to say that you and Lark "passionately dislike" the idea of homosexuality and the thought of them having legal rights under the laws of marriage.

I don't voice my disaproval directly and aimed to s.s. couples.
I DO voice my disaproval against homosexuality, as a phenomen in itself. There is a big difference.

I have nothing with gay people in person. I don't hate them, as people, as this is against my values.
If hate means "to passionately or intensely dislike someone or something.", than yes, I do hate homosexuality. I'm a Christian, and I think homosexuality is sin. We are commanded in Bible to hate sin, but love the siners. So yes, I do hate homosexuality. But I have nothing against gay people. They are responsible for their values, decisions and lifes.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, but others are also entitled to look at it as hate speech. And I think it's wonderful that the gay movement is moving forward the way it is. When people work together for peace, love and understand, things get done. Progress is wonderful.

From a "developing rights" point of view, yes, I agree with you, this is the natural course of events. Its a progress.
But from a christian standpoint, the gay movement and its fast developement show the moral decay and sexual perversion of society.

I could never imagine telling another individual who they should love/marry and what they should do with their private parts. It's none of my business and it shouldn't be the governments either.

Well that is your view. You make it sound like a virtue, the virtue of tolerance.
I don't believe in the concept of tolerance. I think its a tricky way to agree with the majority, nothing else. In other words, the majority decide what is tolerance and what is not. You either accept it or you not.

Love is sacred....whether it's between man/man, woman/woman, or man/woman, and it should all be honored in the eyes of god if that couple chooses so.

I agree and I do not agree.

Anyway, even what I already said, it makes me to cut my tongue. I should've keep myself quiet.

 

[Matt3737]

What I do hate is people seeking to act like the thought police and wreck social institutions for future generations.

Railing against thought policing by acting like the thought police is bad form. Calm down, be polite, and argue rationally.

Edit: That should go without saying to everyone I should add. I don't mean to single you out Lark. Let's all try to keep civil and not blow this out of proportion.

 

[Lark]

Railing against thought policing by acting like the thought police is bad form. Calm down, be polite, and argue rationally.

Support your argument. Or maybe you think that's self-evident in a manner I'm not seeing.

 

[Matt3737]

Support your argument. Or maybe you think that's self-evident in a manner I'm not seeing.

No, I'm not interested in getting into the argument at this point in time. I just saw some heat developing and thought I'd try to help you all keep cool. I edited it also because it appeared like I was singling you out which isn't my intention.

 

[LucyJr]

What about male horse with male human?
Or female human with a female fox?
I think we should legalise everything. Everything is sacred, right?

I should now explain that by this post I was trying to show by means of irony what happens whith the "supposed sacredness" argument.
If one argue against homosexuality by ridiculling:

the sacredness of the institution on the compatibility of penis and vagina. not exactly transcendent is it?

Its a argument of the kind "why not?.
And I reply with the same kind of argument, in the same manner: why not male horse with male human and so on, in a attempt to show the futility of "why not" argumentation.

It was not by any means a attempt to equate homosexuality with bestiality, like I was accused.

 

[Stu]

the ultimate funnies is that proponents of m/f only marriage are basing their argument for the supposed sacredness of the institution on the compatibility of penis and vagina. not exactly transcendent is it?

What about male horse with male human?
Or female human with a female fox?
I think we should legalise everything. Everything is sacred, right?

It was not by any means a attempt to equate homosexuality with bestiality, like I was accused.

.

 

[LucyJr]

.

I'm tired of ambiguities. Please voice what is bodering you so much, so I can reply to you!

 

[invisible]

George Orwell wrote this great novel once called 1984, I really recommend it to you, seeing as you dont understand why the messing with language for political ends is a bad idea.

Now it was written in a different era, so it deals with things which may be unfamiliar such as totalitarianism in its more obvious varieties, state violence and the ideas exploited or seized upon by those wanting to create division and conflict they can personally capitalise on are different, ie socialism rather than validating minority sexual orientation, but I'm sure if you read it and reread it perhaps you could get the meaning.

Then again, maybe not.

i have an undergraduate degree in literature and have read 1984. so far as i can tell, it is the argument that you have presented (and not mine) that proposes restriction of language, and insists that words can only mean one particular thing or another. i think that there is something wrong with this idea that words can only mean one thing or another. words and language, like conventions, are invented by humans, have no fixed meanings, and change naturally over time. it is no longer enough to say that marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman in the past and therefore it should continue to mean the same thing in the future - that reasoning is bankrupt, because we all know that things must change over time. we cant always stop them from changing, but we can talk and make decisions about why or how they should change or should not change. its just that "because they have always previously been defined this way using this particular language" is not a very meaningful argument.

im not too sure how to address the rest of the things you wrote connected to 1984 as i find those remarks slightly unclear. i dont understand any connection between gay marriage and state violence; is this supposed to mean that by sanctioning gay marriage, the state would be doing violence to people who are not gay? this makes no sense to me, because sanctioning other marriages seems to me to have no violent effect or really any other meaningful effect of any kind on already sanctioned marriages. it does not change the status of these marriages as already sanctioned.

i dont know how to respond to the matter of socialism and minority sexual orientation at all, because sexual preference seems distinct from politics for me, they seem more like discrete entities to me than that. i cant understand why sexual preference is socialist, and i cant understand why feeling or expressing romantic and companionate love and sexual attraction towards another human being is related to political organisation. do you recall that in 1984, it was the state that was interfering and attempting to prevent people from feeling and expressing their romantic love? people are different, that is just a fact, that is reality, people are not all the same. are they then willfully creating conflict, being disagreeable, for expecting their differences to be OK with other people? there is nothing wrong with being different, and saying "i am different, and i expect not to be discriminated against and excluded from rights offered by this society and my participation in it on the basis of those differences alone."

 

[invisible]

I should now explain that by this post I was trying to show by means of irony what happens whith the "supposed sacredness" argument.
If one argue against homosexuality by ridiculling:

Its a argument of the kind "why not?.
And I reply with the same kind of argument, in the same manner: why not male horse with male human and so on, in a attempt to show the futility of "why not" argumentation.

It was not by any means a attempt to equate homosexuality with bestiality, like I was accused.

comparisons to beastiality are plainly irrelevant. this is due to the fact that animals are not able to participate as agents in society, among other things because they are not able to independently collect and reflect on the information necessary to formulate complex consent for the purposes of formalising a legal document. they cannot sign a marriage certificate! we are not even able to know how much they are able to experience emotions in the same way that humans do - how much and to what degree are they able to comprehend romantic love? this cannot be determined in any meaningful way. beastiality is plainly not relevant to the matter of gay marriage at all, so let us now abandon the idea that is in any way useful in discussing these matters.

but i agree, this matter of being sacred is problematic. then let us look at it this way. what is it exactly that defines marriage as an institution between men and women, if not some idea of being sacred? what values underpin that institution and say to us that it is a valuable institution, and worth preserving?

it is not meaningful to say that it should remain that way because it has always been that way. we have done many things wrong in the past and this does not mean that we should continue to do them just because we have always done them. there is no sense in which things are right or correct by virtue of having always been done in a particular fashion; things change, and that is the nature of life on this planet.

marriage is a complex agreement, related to a union between two people that seems to be based on something more than physical compatibility. at least, this appears to be why it is important. is marriage somehow more than compatibility of male and female genitalia? if the only thing about it that is important and defining is male and female genital compatibility grinding together, then why is it so important and worth preserving, and is it worth locking other consenting adults out of it on the basis of the idea that their genitalia are incompatible? what even makes genitalia "compatible"? is it reproductive potential? as CrazyBeautiful mentioned, would make it seem necessary for people to reproduce in order for their marriage to be worthwhile; should men and women then only be permitted to marry when they have proven by the production of a child that their union is fertile? clearly genitalia are something more than their reproductive potential: they are a means of a certain sort of interaction or congress between two individuals - something that gay people are clearly just as capable of participating in!

so then, it appears to be that marriage is about something more. it appears to be about something that is somehow "sacred". what is this sacred thing that creates a union between two consenting people? is it romantic love? and if so, are gay people less capable of feeling and expressing romantic love, and committing to a romantic partner? why is it that the romantic love experienced and expressed by two people of the same gender should be somehow less sacred than that experienced and expressed by two people of different genders? two men or two women are just as capable of feeling and expressing romantic love and commitment for each other as a man and a woman are for each other, aren't they?

 

[invisible]

Why people assume always is anti-gay... hate? Why the word 'hate'?

Anyway, its amazing to me the support for the gay relationships in power circles.

Compared to other movements, like the feminist movement, or the fight against slavery, against racism...those were alot more hard to get. With gay movement, its like something almost magic is happening. Things just happen, slowly, but with power and certainty.

actually, that is incorrect; in reality it has been more difficult for this rights movement to happen. that is why it has happened at a historical time after the historical time of those movements. it has taken longer. there is nothing magical about it.

 

[LucyJr]

two men or two women are just as capable of feeling and expressing romantic love and commitment for each other as a man and a woman are for each other, aren't they?

Love, just friendly love, yes. Romantic love? Nah, I seriously doubt it.
I would agree even with sexual love or passion. But not romantic love.

 

[invisible]

excuse me, but civil union is not marriage, and civil unions for gay people is not marriage equality.

equality means not discriminating against others. discriminating against people means excluding them from social institutions on the basis that they are somehow "less" or "other" than people who are permitted to be included in the institutions. there is nothing about the ability of same sex couples to experience or express the defining elements of marriage that is in any way less or other than the abilities of different-sex couples to experience or express those things. they are being excluded from a social institution on a discriminatory basis. this is state sanctioned and socially institutionalised discrimination.

 

[invisible]

Love, just friendly love, yes. Romantic love? Nah, I seriously doubt it.
I would agree even with sexual love or passion. But not romantic love.

why do you believe that two men or two women are not capable of romantically loving one another?

 

[LucyJr]

actually, that is incorrect; in reality it has been more difficult for this rights movement to happen. that is why it has happened at a historical time after the historical time of those movements. it has taken longer. there is nothing magical about it.

You mean longer history, higher value?
I mean it from the moment the movement starts to happen till it ends, not from the beginning of time, or from eternity.