Mozilla CEO forced out because of Prop 8 Donation

[AggregateDemand]

It's sad because we don't know why he supported Prop 8.

Some supporters were bigots who wanted to marginalize gays. Other supporters weren't convinced that an institution with centuries of ingrained heterosexual bias would work seamlessly for gays. Another faction was merely expressing their belief that marriage is a religious tenet and should be defined by the church.

People always assume the worst, and that's where the problems begin.

[AggregateDemand]

It's sad because we don't know why _____ supported Jim Crow.

Some supporters were bigots who wanted to marginalize blacks. Other supporters weren't convinced that an institution with centuries of ingrained Caucasian bias would work seamlessly for blacks. Another faction was merely expressing their belief that racial equality or lack thereof is a religious tenet and should be defined by the church.

People always assume the worst, and that's where the problems begin.

Please stop with your penny-dreadful attempts at metaphor.

Marriage is a voluntary contract, not a immutable genetic characteristic. Homosexuals can be married (to members of the opposite sex), which further illustrates the abundant lack of bigotry from an intellectual standpoint. The problem is lack of relationship privileges for all unmarried individuals, not just homosexual couples.

If you want to make specious incendiary arguments, you'll need to find a forum for complete idiots.

[AggregateDemand]

Oh wait, I remember you!  You're the guy who criticized evolution by asking how animals could have been domesticated, right?  Haha, yeah.  We definitely needed another R-TX around here for the laughs.

If the purpose of R-TX is to explain the construct of artificial selection to evolutionists, you'll need as many of us as you can find.

[AggregateDemand]

So in order to rebut the analogy between racism and homophobia you're going to frame your argument basically verbatim the way supporters of miscegenation laws did back in the day? Trolltastic!

Of course. Because this is clearly a conversation about the rights of heterosexual-homosexual partners to intermarry and the rights of their half-gay offspring.

People have told me that socially-conscious lefties are the second dumbest demographic, after poor religious-fundamentalists. I'm beginning to believe them.

[AggregateDemand]

You, arguing that gay marriage bans aren't bigoted because homosexuals are free under the law to get married to people of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals are

Marriage law is not bigoted. It is intended to regulate people who share community property and who produce biological offspring. Over the years, married people have been given quite a few special privileges in the name of parenthood. These special privileges have created an Equal Protection crisis for all unmarried individuals. Gay marriage is a small part of a much bigger issue. Our modern regulatory problems have not transformed marriage into an inherently bigoted, anti-gay institution.

The state of Virginia's argument that its ban on interracial marriage isn't bigoted because blacks are free to marry just like white people are in Loving v. Virginia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Legally-speaking, it was a good argument. Unfortunately for the bigots, it was not a correct argument. Genetic diversity is an imperative for producing biological offspring. Also, Virginia could not have created an effective legal method for defining "white" and "black". The anti-interracial laws were appearance-based, unenforceable, and designed to prevent people of different races from being together and producing biological children.

The implication of your post was that I'm using a bigoted legal defense; therefore, I must have a bigot's agenda. A legal defense is not inherently bigoted, and the rest of your implied point was a non-sequitur since the subject matter is different. Furthermore, the US is not particularly hostile to gays so the lack of gay marriage does not exclude the possibility of Equal Protection. There is no reason to assume that any private citizens, other than the Westboro-Baptist-types, are acting out of malice.

Anyway, the real bigots are the people in DC, who don't want to lose revenue by giving married tax benefits to all single people. Follow the money.

[AggregateDemand]

To me, the differences comes down to creating a tolerant work environment.  If the boss has some position that a group of employees do not deserve equal rights, it's just problematic.

You can't jump to that conclusion for the same reason right-wingers cannot assume that proponents of government expansion are supporters of communism. The SSM debate is just modern day McCarthyism run amok.

The lack of Equal Protection in relationship contract law affects everyone who is not married. Gays are a tiny subset of the affected population, but Democrats exploit gays because they offer more political capital than other unmarried demographics.

[AggregateDemand]

wtf else do you call someone who spends his money on amending the law to take rights away from a discriminated-against group of people??

Pertinent question:

What kind of person attempts to improve the quality of life for homosexuals by giving them access to dying heterosexual relationship regulations?

An intelligent progressive understands that the problem applies to all non-married people; therefore, reform is part of a populist agenda, not special-interest-victim politics.

[AggregateDemand]

The point of my post was to show that in your attempt to argue that opposition to SSM is not analogous to the racial discrimination of the past, you inadvertently showed exactly why they are analogous by using literally the same arguments that were used to justify miscegenation laws. You're intentionally dancing around the obvious parallels in order to avoid the real question.

If you're not interested in the value of the non-sequitur, why do you insist on lumping me in with the miscegenation crowd? You could just as easily have lumped me in with the anti-polygamists. Non-sequitur is your motivation.

Saying, "well, gays could have it worse off than they do" doesn't justify the discrimination that does exist in the U.S.

I said, if gays lived in a systemically hostile nation, it would be reasonable to associate laws like Prop 8 with violations of Equal Protection. It would be reasonable to assume further hostility if homosexual couples tried to use civil union to seek equal protection or "SSM". We don't live in an openly hostile system or culture (for the most part) so there is no reason to allege bigoted conspiracy.

I take your position to be that the government should either (1) stop granting marriage benefits altogether, or (2) grant similar benefits to all people regardless of their relationship status. This is of course the classic libertarian cop-out. Not that position itself, but the fact that you're using that view to sidestep the question of gay marriage. You could hold such a view regardless of your stance on gay marriage because two completely different questions are involved. The one you want to ask is should the state grant government benefits to couples, and if so what kind? The question involved in the gay marriage debate is, IF the government is going to grant benefits to married couples, THEN should they have to grant those benefits regardless of sexual orientation.

Please. Democrats want to start a war so they can stack a W in the win column. Social costs be damned. This has been the MO of Democrats since the 1960s. Sensible Americans would rather disarm unnecessary confrontation and focus on populist politics that work for everyone.

Our regulations, not our culture, created friction between married and unmarried individuals. Democrats don't acknowledge the situation because they support the progressive statutory tax rate system that causes single people in the middle-income quintiles to pay up to 50% more tax than their married counterparts, and liberals cling to the employer-provided system of job lock (regardless of what Nancy says). Liberals should be ashamed themselves, but they are proud instead.

[AggregateDemand]

I don't know what on earth you're talking about.  Unmarried people haven't decided to get married.  They may not have a serious, committed relationship or they may not want to get married.  That's totally different from gay people who cannot get married, even if they have a serious committed relationship and they want to get married.  It's about the equality of being allowed to get married at all.  No offense, but you're clearly being obtuse as an argumentative strategy.  There's no point in having this conversation if you're going to be willfully obtuse.

I said lack of Equal Protection affects everyone who's not married. My statement was not a prompt for misguided rationalization of the virtues inherent to discriminating against people who don't want to be married.

If we cannot have a conversation, it's because you cannot understand the complexity of the issue.

[AggregateDemand]

lol, you're being such a moderate hero conservative hero

lol, you have no idea what's going on

[AggregateDemand]

Do you think people get married solely for more beneficial tax treatment?

Do you think people who get married for love do not benefit from the tax treatment? or any of the other property/healthcare benefits?

[AggregateDemand]

Please, Arrogant Demand, explain it to us poor simpletons using small words. With brightly-colored pictures too if possible.

Don't affirm the consequent. It undermines your authority. The issue is that bedstuy is capable of misinterpreting any argument, and then steering the argument towards absurd non sequiturs.

Do people get married for tax breaks? If no, it's okay to tolerate systemic discrimination for all unmarried people except gay couples. I couldn't make it up if I tried.