The Constitution says no such thing. Lots of subsets of people are treated different from other subsets of people. The fact remains marriage involves a men and a women and all men and women are treated the same. Men can marry women and women can marry men in legal marriages. We also do not have marriage in the first place just for the fun of it. It serves a vital purpose to society and our species. It is to encourage and to promote and sanction HETEROSEXUALITY and HETEROSEXUAL unions because they are vital to our society and the survival of our species. Homosexuality is of no benefit to society and harmful to our species therefore we should not encourage nor promote nor sanction it. If you want to engage in it go for it, that is your business but there is not right to demand society encourage nor promote nor sanction it. To force someone for their livelihood for not doing so and specifically FOR supporting heterosexuality is the height of arrogance.
the courts just ruled donation were free speech, there is no right to privacy when donating money for political purposes, when I donated to Obama, it was listed
It is a societal creation and we use government and the law to encourage and promote and sanction it because it benefits society and our species to do so. I have yet to hear anyone give a rational explation why we should encourage and promote and sanction homosexuality, certainly we shouldn't make such behavior illegal, but to promote and encourage it?
First he wasn't even CEO when he made the donation, second he did so as a private citizen. Now are we going to now send the brown shirted jackbooted enforcers into every corporation and if the CEO ever supported traditional marriage force them out and ONLY allow people who are pro-homosexuality pursue their livelihoods. Talk about the new McCarthy's.
No, dear. I believe YOU're going to have to deal with the eventuality of gay marriage as a reality! . . .Deal with it!
So, now people voting with their wallets and companies that have a PR image to maintain are "jack-booted thugs"? I can't laugh hard enough. Wow- I love how you guys hate the free market when it does exactly what it was designed to do. Mozilla made a business decision based on the image they want for their company. That's it, nothing more.
Well. . . I don't think that chick-fillet has been ran out of business. . .nor has Hobby Lobby.. . . I guess it all depends on the corporate image corporations want to project. And, obviously, anything related to internet and a consumer basis of younger, more informed, open minded people, a CEO playing the game of the dinosaur is not prone to attract or retain that consumer basis!
The donation was to a political candidate? Not all donations are reportable in fact most aren't to GROUPS. "Most of the non-candidate ads you've seen on your TV this year have been paid for by non-profit organizations that don't have to report their donors. I really do mean "most." As Andy Kroll points out, non-profits and business groups made up 91 percent of "independent expenditures" in the first part of 2012. The non-profits, like Crossroads GPS, the 60 Plus Association, and Americans for Prosperity, don't have to report the names of their donors. AFP can buy $6 million or so of TV time to tell voters about Solyndra, for example, and the people funding the ads can stay mysterious." http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/27/fec_to_501_c_4s_tell_us_more_about_your_donors.html Fail It was a PRIVATE DONATION, not on behalf of the company, but as a PRIVATE CITIZEN.
You are wrong, and it is an elderly woman, married for 43 years to the same man who is telling you this. The "procreation" argument is about as outdated as your idea of what "marriage" means! It is obvious that procreation is in no way linked to marriage any longer, as many children are born to single mothers, many couples, with children, choose not to marry, and both heterosexual AND homosexual couples who are unable to conceive within their marriage can adopt, or use in vitro fertilization, sperm donors, surrogate mothers, etc. . . And. . .let's face it! We have reached a population on this earth that doesn't need anymore "growth" but would do well to be reduced. So, unless you are in favor of abortions, there is no reason to penalize gay couples because they can't "procreate in traditional ways" because those couples are actually beneficial to population control and as an outlet to place unwanted children!
That's been stated for you over and over. First of all, gay people exist and have families. Second, it is beneficial to society to encourage people to have families, is it not? Third, homosexuality need not be encouraged or discouraged. It should simply be dealt with no more differently than heterosexuality. That means, kids with gay parents get to have their parents involved in school functions, just like any other kid. People in same sex relationships can have pics of their families in their office cubes without fear of being fired, and all kinds of other things. Studies have shown over and over that kids do just as well raised by same sex parents as opposite sex parents. Therefore, that's a benefit to society. Are you going to argue otherwise?
Actually, to was more of a 'peace agreement' between families of the betrothed, dating back to days prior to man recording history. Actually, it is a fairly outdated practice (don't tell my wife I said that). Rituals used by western civilizations became an adaptation from the Bible, which was monitored and approved/denied by the Catholic church and later most churches of any denomination. It was later transfer to the States to administer, which wasn't a big issue, as there was much less separation between the church and the States than a lot of people believe. Except for Massachusetts, the recognition of marriages by the States is less than 200 years old.
Yes when you have to dig this deep and it has nothing to do with any donation the COMPANY MADE. And yes I vote with my wallet, and uninstalled Firefox and working on an alternate for Thunderbird as it seems quite a few are doing.
Funny how you believe that expressing MY opinion is "bigoted!" And how you run out of reasonable arguments, so you have to resolve to that old straw man of "pedophilia!" Don't tell me that you are not aware that pedophilia doesn't happen between two CONSENTING ADULTS? Pedophilia is a crime. . .NOTHING to do with committed, consensual relationships between two adults, whether of the same or opposite sex! Come on. . .you're smarter than that!
In some cases perhaps but the primary function was to promote and encourage people into heterosexual unions. Yes rituals have been part of that, as in bringing the man and the woman, in the past sometimes a young girl, and declaring this a union and no one should do anything to break it and everyone should recognize it and each person in the marriage has a responsibilty to keep it strong. All because of the benefit to society because heterosexual unions are vital to our future generations and society as a whole. Which is why every society has had some form of marriage whether religious or not. I can think of none that ever supported and encouraged and promoted homosexuality and survived for very long, I can't even think of any that did at all.
Nope as this married to the same woman for 34 years is telling you. There is reason for heterosexual marriage and a reason we as a society encourage heterosexuality. And you think it wise for society to encourage and promote single motherhood? There is some benefit in doing so? Of course not, which is why we have marriage and why we encourage women and men to get married before they create children and then provide a mother and a father to those children. The fact is we should do more to DISCOURAGE single mothers or children being brought into this world without a mother and a father to provide for them. We are no where near that and in fact in this country are about on the tipping point where we are not producing enough children to sustain ourselves.
Expressing your opinion isn't bigoted. The desire to suppress or punish those with differing opinion is. You and I can disagree, but that does not make it right for me to go to your place of work and to tell your boss I will boycott his company if you are not fired. Sure, I have a right to do so, but that does not make it the right thing to do. The issue needs to be the focus, not the individuals. Yep...I knew you were going to jump all over the pedophilia thing, but it was all I could really come up with in the short time I had to write the post. I noticed you didn't say anything about the incest example. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that homosexual activity was also illegal and still is illegal in some countries. The point is, there are some things that some people would like to be able to be allowed to do that you would not approve of. While I understand your meaning in the context of this discussion, the fact is true equality in ALL things is fairly unachievable at this time and I am sure there are some things that you would agree with that should not be allowed.....at least there should be.
I actually don't think that's true, at least not since the ruling on Windsor. Scalia himself predicted that the opinion of the majority would be used to legalize SSM, and he was right. On that, we do not disagree. So you think it's fine if I were, say, a teacher, and also a member of the Klan?
No one ever said it had anything to do with a donation the company made. Who said that? No one. And no one dug deep at all. This was brought forth by employees at the company and by board members who quit their jobs because this guy got named CEO. You seem to forget that this caused many internal problems as well. Basically, Eich's promotion was very bad for Mozilla. So they did what any company would do in that situation. Or do you think they should have continued to lose employees, clients and customers? Should Mozilla have had to go under? Answer please. No one has so far. Your "jackbooted thug" nonsense is just that- nonsense.
Nope. . .I don't think anything "backfired" on anyone. Those who agreed with the bigotry expressed by those corporations continued to sponsor them. . .and those who didn't, gave their business to other places. That's Capitalism, don't you know?
I believe that, especially now that corporations and the wealthy 1/10 of a % have so much power to "buy" the government, it is important that we use the only form of power we have left as middle class voters, and that is to vote. And, where corporations are concerned, one has to "vote with their feet and their wallet." I do not buy at Hobby Lobby, I do not eat at Chick-filet, I do not sponsor any of Limbaugh's sponsors, and I do not buy products made by the Koch brothers and I refuse to set foot at Walmart! That is the American way. . .the "Capitalist" way to affect "supply and demand" and the only way that may be effective with the hypocrisy and the bigotry of some corporations and politicians. By the way, I have answer that "straw man" of "incest" several times, in several threads. . .I won't repeat myself again, if you want to know my stand on that, send me a pm.
Most people think homosexuality is immoral. There is nothing wrong with believing that. This CEO was forced out by loud mouth bigots of the gay supporting nazis not the people.
Well, maybe they found someone better to run the company other than the inventor of JavaScript. Someone, please tell me who this person is? Wait, there's nobody... Two words to investors: "Fire Sale"!
