OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[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?

Dood, cynacism...you mastered it.

Why thank-you, it is my best feature.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

JAll you you have to do is admit that your claim is false, admit that there is a difference between familial love and romantic love. If you can't admit that then your position is that you love your son in the same way you love your wife, you're the one who said he's marry his son.

Of course they are different, just there is no point for the State to treat differently different types of love, or to give economic benefits to people because of their mutual love.

"Love", or any arbitrary classification of it, is not what makes marriage relevant in front of the State - my claim still stands.

 

[wolfyrik]

JAll you you have to do is admit that your claim is false, admit that there is a difference between familial love and romantic love. If you can't admit that then your position is that you love your son in the same way you love your wife, you're the one who said he's marry his son.

Of course they are different, just there is no point for the State to treat differently different types of love, or to give economic benefits to people because of their mutual love.

"Love", or any arbitrary classification of it, is not what makes marriage relevant in front of the State - my claim still stands.

No there isn't reason for the state to treat differently, different types of love, except reasons of consent and demonstrable harm, which means that there's no reason to deny Same Sex Marriage.

As for love being relevent in front the state, of course it is, because modern marriage is an expression of love rather than a religous or social requirement (outside of it's abuse which occurrs already and wouldn't be affected by SSM). Sure you can decouple love from the litgation and tax side side but there's no reason to deny gay marriage there either because homosexuals can also raise families and do so successfully, though those offspring may be due to previous relationships, adoption or artifical means.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

No there isn't reason for the state to treat differently, different types of love, except reasons of consent and demonstrable harm, which means that there's no reason to deny Same Sex Marriage.

As for love being relevent in front the state, of course it is, because modern marriage is an expression of love rather than a religous or social requirement (outside of it's abuse which occurrs already and wouldn't be affected by SSM). Sure you can decouple love from the litgation and tax side side but there's no reason to deny gay marriage there either because homosexuals can also raise families and do so successfully, though those offspring may be due to previous relationships, adoption or artifical means.

So you are seriously saying that because someone love (romantically) someone else... they are entitled to residence permit and tax breaks? In exactly the same way two or more people commit each other to procreate new members of the society?
The point is, proponents of SS"M" do not claim decoupling from economical benefits - they may be sinister, but certainly they are not stupid.

Hyperbole #1: well then, I suppose I could choose to be creepy and romantically love my son or nephew in order for him to get a share of my pension when I die. Go ahead and call me dangerous now - being both male there is not even the genetic risk associated with offspring of close relatives.

Offspring of previous relationships are not relevant in this context - adoption is relevant, and whoever adopts and raises a kid should indeed have access to the same benefits - but that's another subject. Of course, I maintain that a married couple is the preferable choice.

 

[Signa]

Yeah, that's not a good enough argument to change my browser. In fact, it's such an irritating argument that the LBGT community is losing face in my eyes. I support what they stand for, but as each day goes on with shit like this, I'm finding it harder and hard to support the people in the community because of how short sighted and falsely victimized they act. Being a bigger asshole than the assholes doesn't make you better than the assholes. You're just a bigger asshole.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

Technically speaking, if you aren't with them, you're against them. The current state of affairs is still biased against LGBT rights and if you don't give a fuck, you're content with the current situation, you're content with the bias against LGBT rights.

But that's if you go "deeper" into the argument. If you don't give a fuck, just don't give a fuck. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an asshole.

I for one use Chrome because it's more convenient while I also use Firefox to browse for

Spoiler

gay porn.

Honestly, first time heard about this anti-gay movement or whatever. If it's a 1st April joke, it went over my head.

 

[Verlander]

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.

But what consequence? You seem to be labouring under the impression that a homosexual couple or a group of people are incapable of raising a child, which is categorically incorrect. Likewise, the "traditional" version of marriage was not a fail safe for protecting children, so there's little point in defending it.

Regardless of your opinion, proposition 8 didn't provide any "equality", it was about maintaining the unequal status quo. It didn't concern itself with children, but rather with the legality of a homosexual marriage. While I agree that the state shouldn't interfere with social issues, the act of banning same-sex marriage was more intrusive than not. Yet, at the same time, there was no legal requirement for a heterosexually married couple to reproduce or adopt - so marriage in it's normal sense was not about children.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

But what consequence? You seem to be labouring under the impression that a homosexual couple or a group of people are incapable of raising a child, which is categorically incorrect. Likewise, the "traditional" version of marriage was not a fail safe for protecting children, so there's little point in defending it.

Regardless of your opinion, proposition 8 didn't provide any "equality", it was about maintaining the unequal status quo. It didn't concern itself with children, but rather with the legality of a homosexual marriage. While I agree that the state shouldn't interfere with social issues, the act of banning same-sex marriage was more intrusive than not. Yet, at the same time, there was no legal requirement for a heterosexually married couple to reproduce or adopt - so marriage in it's normal sense was not about children.

You are absolutely correct about current marriage being inconsistent, by allowing people who don't want children at all to gain access to benefits that, historically, have been established in a time where being married was pretty much equivalent to have children. I already said that the notion of automatic rights simply for living together should be rethinked, in the interest of fairness.

So yes, proposition 8 didn't provide equality, although it opposed a change that would solve some of this inconsistency... by adding new ones.
Tertium non datur? For how things are, I doubt we will have anytime soon a law that brings _actual_ equality in this sense - a very vocal minority in the LGBT community seems to be content to just have their cake regardless of it being inconsistent and discriminatory toward other forms of love. No wonder a lot people, even in such a libertarian forum, are being tired of their bullying.

 

[Verlander]

You are absolutely correct about current marriage being inconsistent, by allowing people who don't want children at all to gain access to benefits that, historically, have been established in a time where being married was pretty much equivalent to have children. I already said that the notion of automatic rights simply for living together should be rethinked, in the interest of fairness.

So yes, proposition 8 didn't provide equality, although it opposed a change that would solve some of this inconsistency... by adding new ones.
Tertium non datur? For how things are, I doubt we will have anytime soon a law that brings _actual_ equality in this sense - a very vocal minority in the LGBT community seems to be content to just have their cake regardless of it being inconsistent and discriminatory toward other forms of love. No wonder a lot people, even in such a libertarian forum, are being tired of their bullying.

I wouldn't say this was a libertarian forum, more just a naive one. Everyone's libertarian insofar as they care about themselves first - branching out in either direction makes someone progressive or conservative, and many on here (and the internet in general) only think in the immediacy.

Still, this doesn't support Prop 8. Real libertarians approve gay marriage, because they approve the state having little to no influence in this regard. As for the LGBT community rejecting other forms of love, well, I've not witnessed this. I'm a critic of the vocal LGBT community and the liberal community that supports them regardless (I believe that the sexism and racism that is often expressed in the LGBT community without feat of reprimand to be abhorrent), and as a result of which I can easily believe that there is an "anti-polygamy" section of the support. However, this only proves such members to be hypocrites - not that the underlying policy of the "removing the gay marriage ban" is flawed.

 

[tangoprime]

A whole 1000 dollars for prop 8?

What does that cover these days? a spread in a newspaper?

When I read that, I actually laughed.

That being said, as others have already stated... I'm not switching to shittier browsers as a token gesture in futility.

I'm glad to see the whole world hasn't gone "Chrome Crazy" as I thought it had.

I don't understand the appeal of that terrible... terrible browser.

Lets also not forget that Prop 8 passed, before the later legal process, when it was voted on by the public, it passed. So... we're supposed to boycott a company due to a small contribution by a member of said company towards support of a piece of legislation that ended up being supported by a majority of the population that voted on it?

Also, someone in this thread called this guy a homophobe (homophobia: irrational fear of, or hatred towards homosexuals). For supporting a piece of legislation regarding marriage. Which was passed by public vote. OK.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, someone in this thread called this guy a homophobe (homophobia: irrational fear of, or hatred towards homosexuals). For supporting a piece of legislation regarding marriage. Which was passed by public vote. OK.

So? Just because homophobic piece of legislation was voted for, it doesn't stop being homophobic.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

So? Just because homophobic piece of legislation was voted for, it doesn't stop being homophobic.

Can we please stop using that silly word now? Nobody here is afraid of gay people, and nobody suffers of a mental illness solely for having moral values. Thank you.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Still, this doesn't support Prop 8. Real libertarians approve gay marriage, because they approve the state having little to no influence in this regard. As for the LGBT community rejecting other forms of love, well, I've not witnessed this. I'm a critic of the vocal LGBT community and the liberal community that supports them regardless (I believe that the sexism and racism that is often expressed in the LGBT community without feat of reprimand to be abhorrent), and as a result of which I can easily believe that there is an "anti-polygamy" section of the support. However, this only proves such members to be hypocrites - not that the underlying policy of the "removing the gay marriage ban" is flawed.

Funny - I disapprove of gay marriage _precisely_ because the State currently has influence over marriage, and is now actively pushing to redefine it in a way that excludes procreation and is inconsistent with actual equality. Agreed about the rest.

 

[EyeReaper]

I'm not entirely sure which side to take here, stupid grey morality.
On one hand, yes, gay rights is a good thing, equality for all and all that jazz, and anyone who actively funds the banning of gay marriage frankly isn't someone I'd want to be around

On the other hand, that was six years ago. I can't approve of demonizing an entire company just because of one guy's douchebag history/personal belief. He is not his company. This would be like if you went onto an atheist website on a windows and a message popped up saying "hey, did you know Bill Gates* is Christian? you don't want to support a christian company, do you? I'd recommend switching to a mac." And, yes, I know that is a bit hyperbolas in comparison, but I think my point stands

*I actually have no ideas on the Gateskeeper's religious beliefs, so don't bother correcting that hypothetical.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So? Just because homophobic piece of legislation was voted for, it doesn't stop being homophobic.

Can we please stop using that silly word now? Nobody here is afraid of gay people, and nobody suffers of a mental illness solely for having moral values. Thank you.

I promise to stop using the word homophobia when the homophobia goes away. Thanks.

 

[Seydaman]

The problem is that the LGBT "rights" movement is pretty much 100% over and done with in America. The main part that's left is to pick-off and pick-on anyone who still acts like an asshole to anyone who isn't heterosexual. But that's not Rights, that's just asshole-demoralization.

Freedom from wrongful discrimination is a part of LGBT rights, acting as if it's over is just naive.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

I promise to stop using the word homophobia when the homophobia goes away. Thanks.

You can stop now then - unless you think that supporting marriage as a union inherently based on procreation to be a mental illness.

 

[JazzJack2]

Funny - I disapprove of gay marriage _precisely_ because the State currently has influence over marriage, and is now actively pushing to redefine it in a way that excludes procreation and is inconsistent with actual equality. Agreed about the rest.

Of the course the state has influence over marriage, marriage is a state institution (Not a religious one like many people argue.)

 

[Thaluikhain]

I promise to stop using the word homophobia when the homophobia goes away. Thanks.

You can stop now then

Nope.

supporting marriage as a union inherently based on procreation

So...you are in favour of only allowing fertile couples to marry if they agree to have kids, and would force divorces on them if they don't (how does adoption figure in)?

If so, then you'd probably not be homophobic in your opposition to same sex marriages, no, though I'd strongly disagree.

But you'd be in a tiny minority on that.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

So...you are in favour of only allowing fertile couples to marry if they agree to have kids, and would force divorces on them if they don't (how does adoption figure in)?

If so, then you'd probably not be homophobic in your opposition to same sex marriages, no, though I'd strongly disagree.

But you'd be in a tiny minority on that.

As I said before, only being in love should not grant you rights that other people don't have - the extra support for marriage historically has always been implicitly a support for the hardships of raising children.

And either way, if you want people to be treated differently simply for being love, it makes no sense to keep this restriction in number.