OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[wolfyrik]

Yup, it's all about consent. It's illegal to marry a man and woman if it's non consensual. Children are deemed unable to give consent, as are animals. Should Poly people be allowed to marry? Sure, why not. Should gay people? Definitely. It's a really really really simple right, and the people that oppose it don't do so because they "don't understand", but rather because they want to retain their own privilege at the cost of others. Or, to put it another way, are hateful bigots who are polluting the gene pool.

Exactly, you put it for better than I, nice one and thanks.

You're right, it really is a case of wanting to retain the right to be intolerant. It's like a petulant child who doesn't want other children to play with their toys. Infact, I really can't see any difference.

 

[Verlander]

Except that the only bigots, here, are those that think that opposition of same-sex "marriage" is despicable.
Reality check: it's a perfectly rational and moral one, and arguably the most liberal.

Treating someone differently based on an arbitrary fact about them (and not an action) is despicable. It's a motivation behind nearly every war and social movement since the war of independence.

Don't pretend like there is a legitimate reason behind "one man, one woman" marriage, other than direct discrimination. Marriage only existed in the first place to "own" women. We've moved on, and continue to progress as a people, and it's always for the better.

Except that the point here is not sexual orientation - is about granting additional rights to people because of... what exactly? Having children, or trying to is a perfectly rational reason; loving each other, not so much.

I am not interested in this or that definition of "marriage" - it changed over history, although always having been about procreation in pretty much all cultures and countries; what I DO care about is that the State treats all citizens equally, and giving additional rights simply because of mutual affection, but ONLY if it involves just two people, is completely illiberal.

It's been about property and control in all cultures. It has changed its specification over time, and will do now.

"Marriage equality" isn't about granting additional rights, it's about removing illegal restrictions on certain members of society. Illegal because the US is supposed to be "land of the free" and all that bullshit.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Oh, is it? My opinion is indefensible? Because it differs from yours?
See the problem here? We can go around and around in circles for hours. Key difference between the differing views us two have, and the differing views I have with Brendan Eich, is I know he actively worked against marriage equality.
Pushing to stop others from getting married doesn't hurt anyone? Lets go and tell that to all the gay whiners trying to get married, I bet they'll be thrilled to hear that they haven't been hurt.

Except that your definition of "equality" is arbitrary and flawed, and opposing it is moral, is legitimate, is liberal:

http://www.themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/17/but-seriously-why-is-polygamy-still-illegal/

By your logic, you are "hurting" and "denying the rights" of Muslims to marry more than one person.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

I disagree with your assessment about marriage being "property control" - there certainly has been this aspect, but to claim that it is central to it is an obvious exaggeration.

"Marriage equality" isn't about granting additional rights, it's about removing illegal restrictions on certain members of society. Illegal because the US is supposed to be "land of the free" and all that bullshit.

If this is what you have to say, you have completely missed my point and why it makes sense opposing SSM as it is currenlt being proposed.

I would suggest you read the blog post [themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/17/but-seriously-why-is-polygamy-still-illegal/] I linked in my first post - perhaps that will make a lot of things more clear.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

[...]

I will not debate anyone that said that "I am a danger to my own children" simply for having liberal opinions about marriage.

 

[wolfyrik]

Oh, is it? My opinion is indefensible? Because it differs from yours?
See the problem here? We can go around and around in circles for hours. Key difference between the differing views us two have, and the differing views I have with Brendan Eich, is I know he actively worked against marriage equality.
Pushing to stop others from getting married doesn't hurt anyone? Lets go and tell that to all the gay whiners trying to get married, I bet they'll be thrilled to hear that they haven't been hurt.

Except that your definition of "equality" is arbitrary and flawed, and opposing it is moral, is legitimate, is liberal:

http://www.themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/17/but-seriously-why-is-polygamy-still-illegal/

By your logic, you are "hurting" and "denying the rights" of Muslims to marry more than one person.

And again you cite the same fallacious blog as source. You know why you have to do that? Because your argument is nonsense, but you've found someone who has the same nonsense ideas as you. That's not evidence, it's just mutual idiocy.

Allowing Gays to marry doesn't deny the right of muslims or anyone else, those are a seperate issue to be considered. Law already exists for couples, expanding that law to allow other types of couples is simple, obvious and doesn't require an overhaul of existing law. Polygamy is different and so needs to be addressed on it's own merit, with it's own rules and regulations laid out to prevent abuse. Just as "Couples" Marriage has already gone through.

Your argument is entirely false.

 

[joshuaayt]

Oh, is it? My opinion is indefensible? Because it differs from yours?
See the problem here? We can go around and around in circles for hours. Key difference between the differing views us two have, and the differing views I have with Brendan Eich, is I know he actively worked against marriage equality.
Pushing to stop others from getting married doesn't hurt anyone? Lets go and tell that to all the gay whiners trying to get married, I bet they'll be thrilled to hear that they haven't been hurt.

Except that your definition of "equality" is arbitrary and flawed, and opposing it is moral, is legitimate, is liberal:

http://www.themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/17/but-seriously-why-is-polygamy-still-illegal/

By your logic, you are "hurting" and "denying the rights" of Muslims to marry more than one person.

How many times have I funded organisations that wish to prevent people marrying more than one person? By my logic, I've done nothing other than argue a point which, by your logic, is completely OK.

Besides- I DO believe in a completely open marriage system. The only thing that should stand in the way of a marriage is consent, and the ability to give said consent. If you want to get married to 150 sailors? Cool, as long as you're all happy. Meals might get loud. This does not affect me, and no one is worse off for it. Someone wants to get married to a kid? Not cool, because they are too young to give consent, and there is well founded reasoning for that.

This should be the simplest thing- let anyone be with anyone, so long as they are all capable of giving legal consent.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

How many times have I funded organisations that wish to prevent people marrying more than one person? By my logic, I've done nothing other than argue a point which, by your logic, is completely OK.

Besides- I DO believe in a completely open marriage system. The only thing that should stand in the way of a marriage is consent, and the ability to give said consent. If you want to get married to 150 sailors? Cool, as long as you're all happy. Meals might get loud. This does not affect me, and no one is worse off for it. Someone wants to get married to a kid? Not cool, because they are too young to give consent, and there is well founded reasoning for that.

This should be the simplest thing- let anyone be with anyone, so long as they are all capable of giving legal consent.

Then we are in agreement - as long as it doesn't cost anything to the taxpayers, I have nothing in public recognition of mutual love.
But this is beside the point. The main point is:

"For which practical reasons you allow some citizens to get additional benefits?"

Certainly, just because you love someone and that person returns the feeling, you shouldn't be entitled to any taxpayers' dough. Because if you did, then yeah, I would totally marry my son just to relieve him of any heritage shenanigans.

But what about the marriage that we already have then? Because obviously, the reason marriage enjoys its benefits it's because those are a counterweight to the hardships and cost to raise children. This is the rationale behind providing a married coupled with residence permit if one is a foreigner, so that they can live together; and in some case also with reversibility of the pension in case one dies prematurely, so that the family can at least benefit from the welfare of the missing parent.
This is a perfectly logical reason to allow additional rights, one grounded in practicality.

Now, consider that just one generation ago people didn't have access to contraceptives, thus pretty much every married couple had children, unless they were sterile. Today you can decide freely when and if having them, hence I believe that the notion of automatic rights simply for living together should be rethinked, in the interest of fairness.

And of course, for the above reasons, extending those rights to same-sex unions, but ONLY if they are comprised of two individuals is a pretty silly idea in my book.

 

[wolfyrik]

Then we are in agreement - as long as it doesn't cost anything to the taxpayers, I have nothing in public recognition of mutual love.
But this is beside the point. The main point is:

"For which practical reasons you allow some citizens to get additional benefits?"

Certainly, just because you love someone and that person returns the feeling, you shouldn't be entitled to any taxpayers' dough. Because if you did, then yeah, I would totally marry my son just to relieve him of any heritage shenanigans.

...Snip.....And of course, for the above reasons, extending those rights to same-sex unions, but ONLY if they are comprised of two individuals is a pretty silly idea in my book.

Copypasta response, you used exactly the same text before and are still using the same argument that familial love is the same as romantic love. Either you can't tell the difference or you're dishonest. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that Homsoexuals also are likely to feel the need to have family, which is why homosexuals adopt, have children from previous relationships or use artificial insemination. Since married gay couples are just as capable of raising families, they should also have the same rights under law for raising families.

As for "compromised of two individuals" that's a comlpetely different matter which is to mbe addressed seperately. Polygamy is not the same as homosexuality and thus needs different laws to govern it in marriage to prevent abuse.

You're wrong on every single ground of your claim.

 

[joshuaayt]

How many times have I funded organisations that wish to prevent people marrying more than one person? By my logic, I've done nothing other than argue a point which, by your logic, is completely OK.

Besides- I DO believe in a completely open marriage system. The only thing that should stand in the way of a marriage is consent, and the ability to give said consent. If you want to get married to 150 sailors? Cool, as long as you're all happy. Meals might get loud. This does not affect me, and no one is worse off for it. Someone wants to get married to a kid? Not cool, because they are too young to give consent, and there is well founded reasoning for that.

This should be the simplest thing- let anyone be with anyone, so long as they are all capable of giving legal consent.

Then we are in agreement - as long as it doesn't cost anything to the taxpayers, I have nothing in public recognition of mutual love.
But this is beside the point. The main point is:

"For which practical reasons you allow some citizens to get additional benefits?"

Certainly, just because you love someone and that person returns the feeling, you shouldn't be entitled to any taxpayers' dough. Because if you did, then yeah, I would totally marry my son just to relieve him of any heritage shenanigans.

But what about the marriage that we already have then? Because obviously, the reason marriage enjoys its benefits it's because those are a counterweight to the hardships and cost to raise children. This is the rationale behind providing a married coupled with residence permit if one is a foreigner, so that they can live together; and in some case also with reversibility of the pension in case one dies prematurely, so that the family can at least benefit from the welfare of the missing parent.
This is a perfectly logical reason to allow additional rights, one grounded in practicality.

Now, consider that just one generation ago people didn't have access to contraceptives, thus pretty much every married couple had children, unless they were sterile. Today you can decide freely when and if having them, hence I believe that the notion of automatic rights simply for living together should be rethinked, in the interest of fairness.

And of course, for the above reasons, extending those rights to same-sex unions, but ONLY if they are comprised of two individuals is a pretty silly idea in my book.

I'm glad we agree on the love side of things- and you do raise a good point.
My counter- That's something we can figure out.

I mean, I really don't even think it'd be that complicated. People don't need money to be married, as you said, they need it to support children. So, the government bases support on combined income of the family, and the number of children- no problem. Let families stick together, and help them find work if that's a factor- we do that already.

I don't think something like that- even if it is a lot more complex than I've suggested- should get in the way of true marriage equality. We're already talking about a major upheaval of the marriage system; it follows that support systems would have to change as well.

 

[wolfyrik]

I'm glad we agree on the love side of things- and you do raise a good point.
My counter- That's something we can figure out.
I mean, I really don't even think it'd be that complicated. People don't need money to be married, as you said, they need it to support children. So, the government bases support on combined income of the family, and the number of children- no problem. Let families stick together, and help them find work if that's a factor- we do that already.
I don't think something like that- even if it is a lot more complex than I've suggested- should get in the way of true marriage equality.

The thing is it's just plain false and a red-herring argument. Any "money" granted in any terms to couples in marriage law and tax purposes, isn't just for children. Couples who don't have children, can't have children or aren't intending to have children aren't prosecuted, fined or forced to seperate, because children are not the focus of marriage.

Married gay couples would not have access to rights that marriage straight couples don't also have. Married gay couples are also in a position to adopt or take care of any children they already have, either through artifical means or previous relationships. They have the same monetary requirements as straight couples, so why should they not have access to the same support?

Exactly as you say, the support can be talked about after. To use this argument to deny gay marriage is absurd.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

I'm glad we agree on the love side of things- and you do raise a good point.
My counter- That's something we can figure out.

I mean, I really don't even think it'd be that complicated. People don't need money to be married, as you said, they need it to support children. So, the government bases support on combined income of the family, and the number of children- no problem. Let families stick together, and help them find work if that's a factor- we do that already.

I don't think something like that- even if it is a lot more complex than I've suggested- should get in the way of true marriage equality. We're already talking about a major upheaval of the marriage system; it follows that support systems would have to change as well.

Except that in the way it is being formulated so far, and keeps being pushed, it certainly isn't worth of being called "equality" - equality in gender, but not in number or in degree of relationship: that's a very arbitrary definition of "equality".

Yes, we can figure it out - but granted, this will never happen in the short or even medium term - politicians are way too busy listening to who moans the most, and they care little for good solutions that are difficult to implement.

I certainly reject the hateful labels being thrown around by bigots from each side of the argument that opposing SSM as currently formulated is "hate".

 

[forgo911]

First off, who the hell cares what others think? If they want to be anti-LGBT let them. Who the hell cares what one person says or does in his spare time? When the CEO donated that money, he did it for tax relief more than anything. When it comes to supporting people who are anti-LGBT, I'll do it as long as they keep producing good products. I am a huge Orson Scott Card fan, I think he is a great Science Fiction writer. I buy all of his books because I enjoy them.

Also can we just give the LGBT their rights so they can shut up already? Seriously they are really fricken annoying. Just let them get married so they can be as unhappy as the rest of us.

captcha: better call Saul. Who the hell is Saul?

 

[Verlander]

I disagree with your assessment about marriage being "property control" - there certainly has been this aspect, but to claim that it is central to it is an obvious exaggeration.

"Marriage equality" isn't about granting additional rights, it's about removing illegal restrictions on certain members of society. Illegal because the US is supposed to be "land of the free" and all that bullshit.

If this is what you have to say, you have completely missed my point and why it makes sense opposing SSM as it is currenlt being proposed.

I would suggest you read the blog post [themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/17/but-seriously-why-is-polygamy-still-illegal/] I linked in my first post - perhaps that will make a lot of things more clear.

I read the post. He makes no point about why a marriage should remain between "a man and a woman". Should polygamists marry? If they want. I've never argued against that.

The point in the article seems to be that he cannot work out the answer to "Marriage is _____". I daresay this is due to his own blinkered view on the definition of marriage. He can't see how a definition can include these changes.

Marriage is a legal and sexual binding between consensual people.

Fuck that was easy.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Well they're a dating website, and they do actually have some obligation to care given as how they bring gay people together, so at least the message isn't misplaced. They're protesting about something which directly relates to their service.

I don't think a lot of people will switch, I myself prefer chrome already, but I don't blame them for taking a stance on it.

 

[wolfyrik]

I'm glad we agree on the love side of things- and you do raise a good point.
My counter- That's something we can figure out.

I mean, I really don't even think it'd be that complicated. People don't need money to be married, as you said, they need it to support children. So, the government bases support on combined income of the family, and the number of children- no problem. Let families stick together, and help them find work if that's a factor- we do that already.

I don't think something like that- even if it is a lot more complex than I've suggested- should get in the way of true marriage equality. We're already talking about a major upheaval of the marriage system; it follows that support systems would have to change as well.

Except that in the way it is being formulated so far, and keeps being pushed, it certainly isn't worth of being called "equality" - equality in gender, but not in number or in degree of relationship: that's a very arbitrary definition of "equality".

Yes, we can figure it out - but granted, this will never happen in the short or even medium term - politicians are way too busy listening to who moans the most, and they care little for good solutions that are difficult to implement.

I certainly reject the hateful labels being thrown around by bigots from each side of the argument that opposing SSM as currently formulated is "hate".

Please, it is hate, you just find ever more obscure reasons for denying it and shrink back your arguments against it reductio ad absurdum. your latest claim that it's about money, is just embarassingly shortsighted and your point that it leaves out polygamy is entirely irrelevant. One step towards equality is better than none at all because you want to do everyone at once or nothing. The law is in place for couples, extending it to SSM is only fair and polygamy can be sorted out seperately since it requires additional examination of laws to prevent abuse.

Why else come up with such bogus claims? Because you need reasons to justify your hate and you're rapidly running out.

 

[wolfyrik]

First off, who the hell cares what others think? If they want to be anti-LGBT let them. Who the hell cares what one person says or does in his spare time? When the CEO donated that money, he did it for tax relief more than anything. When it comes to supporting people who are anti-LGBT, I'll do it as long as they keep producing good products. I am a huge Orson Scott Card fan, I think he is a great Science Fiction writer. I buy all of his books because I enjoy them.

Also can we just give the LGBT their rights so they can shut up already? Seriously they are really fricken annoying. Just let them get married so they can be as unhappy as the rest of us.

captcha: better call Saul. Who the hell is Saul?

Dood, cynacism...you mastered it.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Clearly I was right, you're too dishonest to answer the question. Thanks for proving my point.

Go ahead, claim victory all you like.
I will not debate with you until you'll change your tone and be civil - there are plenty of people who are not intolerant to have interesting discussions with.

I wonder when society will finally get tired of LGBT extremists.

 

[RoonMian]

After reading a few pages I think I have managed to boil down the divide between the two opinions in this thread to these two roughly simplified general viewpoints:


"You have to tolerate even intolerance."

vs.

"You cannot tolerate intolerance."



I for myself know very well on which side I am.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

I read the post. He makes no point about why a marriage should remain between "a man and a woman". Should polygamists marry? If they want. I've never argued against that.

The point in the article seems to be that he cannot work out the answer to "Marriage is _____". I daresay this is due to his own blinkered view on the definition of marriage. He can't see how a definition can include these changes.

Marriage is a legal and sexual binding between consensual people.

Fuck that was easy.

Indeed, the issue is not one of definition here - the point is about the public consequences of marriage.
As I said before I don't see why the State should be concerned who you sleep or live with - but raising children is a hard, demanding task that is the only way any society has to perpetuate itself - that is way more important than mutual love, and certainly is not equivalent to it to the point of giving these two things the same name.

So equality? Yes please - let's have some _actual_ equality, not the one that is being advertised as such; in the light of this, supporting proposition 8 makes way more sense than not doing so - you do not solve an inconsistency by creating even bigger ones.