• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both (1 Viewer)

TeleKat

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
3,775
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
An excellent piece co-signed by Robert Sarvis, who is the Libertarian candidate for US Senate in my state this year.

The last few years have brought an astonishing moral and political transformation in the American debate over same-sex marriage and gay equality. This has been a triumph not only for LGBT Americans but for the American idea. But the breakthrough has brought with it rapidly rising expectations among some supporters of gay marriage that the debate should now be over. As one advocate recently put it, “It would be enough for me if those people who are so ignorant or intransigent as to still be anti-gay in 2014 would simply shut up.”

The signatories of this statement are grateful to our friends and allies for their enthusiasm. But we are concerned that recent events, including the resignation of the CEO of Mozilla under pressure because of an anti-same-sex- marriage donation he made in 2008, signal an eagerness by some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticize or to persuade those who disagree. We reject that deeply illiberal impulse, which is both wrong in principle and poor as politics.

We support same-sex marriage; many of us have worked for it, in some cases for a large portion of our professional and personal lives. We affirm our unwavering commitment to civic and legal equality, including marriage equality. At the same time, we also affirm our unwavering commitment to the values of the open society and to vigorous public debate—the values that have brought us to the brink of victory.

(Read more)

Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both | RealClearPolitics
 
The CEO of Mozilla damaged the company because if it. You have freedom of speech but you do not have the right to not punched in the face or hated for those opinions. Everyone would have wanted him to step down if he was against interracial marriage.
 
Last edited:
The CEO of Mozilla damaged the company because if it. You have freedom of speech but you do not have the right to not punched in the face or hated for those opinions. Everyone would have wanted him to step down if he was against interracial marriage.

Neither I, or the article, said that it was an infringement of freedom of speech. However, it was the wrong approach. Forcing him to step down for his personal views, and a donation he made years ago, was taking it a bit too far. We preach tolerance, and then are intolerant of the views of others. What if the CEO was forced to step down for his support of gay marriage rather than traditional marriage? The article, if you read it all, made a good case against brutalist gay rights activism. We must allow the other side to dissent, even if they don't necessarily allot us the same respect...because we're better than them. We preach a message of love and tolerance, so we need to be consistent in that message.
 
Neither I, or the article, said that it was an infringement of freedom of speech. However, it was the wrong approach. Forcing him to step down for his personal views, and a donation he made years ago, was taking it a bit too far. We preach tolerance, and then are intolerant of the views of others. What if the CEO was forced to step down for his support of gay marriage rather than traditional marriage? The article, if you read it all, made a good case against brutalist gay rights activism. We must allow the other side to dissent, even if they don't necessarily allot us the same respect...because we're better than them. We preach a message of love and tolerance, so we need to be consistent in that message.

Well if that happened the company would probably find it self we massive loss of business just like Mozilla probably would have faced. If no one brought it up or he didn't donate in the first place it wouldn't be an issue. You do need to be tolerant but you also to be on the offensive.
 
Well if that happened the company would probably find it self we massive loss of business just like Mozilla probably would have faced. If no one brought it up or he didn't donate in the first place it wouldn't be an issue. You do need to be tolerant but you also to be on the offensive.

On the loss of business side, I agree with you 100%. CEOs are the face of their company and should not hold controversial political views as they affect the company as a whole. His being fired was completely 100% justified.

My criticism is aimed at those that pressured the company about it to begin with. Seriously. It's a computer software company. The CEO donated to a traditional marriage organization once in 2008 and the militants are digging it up and using it against him and the company years into the future. It's ridiculous. It's not as if Mozilla was discriminating in their employment or their sales. It's not as if the CEO went live on television and said "Fags should die in hell" or anything like that. It should not have been as big of a deal as it was, and it's that kind of militant behavior that is holding the movement back.
 
On the loss of business side, I agree with you 100%. CEOs are the face of their company and should not hold controversial political views as they affect the company as a whole. His being fired was completely 100% justified.

My criticism is aimed at those that pressured the company about it to begin with. Seriously. It's a computer software company. The CEO donated to a traditional marriage organization once in 2008 and the militants are digging it up and using it against him and the company years into the future. It's ridiculous. It's not as if Mozilla was discriminating in their employment or their sales. It's not as if the CEO went live on television and said "Fags should die in hell" or anything like that. It should not have been as big of a deal as it was, and it's that kind of militant behavior that is holding the movement back.

You just said it yourself, it was more militant activists that brought it up, not the main movement. It was brought into the spotlight and same-sex activists acted appropriately. The CEO could have avoided all this in the first place by not donating.
 
You just said it yourself, it was more militant activists that brought it up, not the main movement.

I am well aware. The article I posted, which clearly you did not bother to read, was not condemning the movement at all. This is pretty much a "duh" since it was written and signed by well-known gay rights activists. We are well aware that it is the more militant activists pulling this crap, and the article seeks to change the hearts and minds of those activists so that we can steer the movement in a better direction. A direction of peace and tolerance, rather than vitriol and hate
 
I am well aware. The article I posted, which clearly you did not bother to read, was not condemning the movement at all. This is pretty much a "duh" since it was written and signed by well-known gay rights activists. We are well aware that it is the more militant activists pulling this crap, and the article seeks to change the hearts and minds of those activists so that we can steer the movement in a better direction. A direction of peace and tolerance, rather than vitriol and hate

They didn't have a right to call a boycott if this guy was named CEO? Why?
 
Blistering example of "tolerance" from the rabid left. It makes me laugh every time I read or hear a liberal or more, a progressive, use the term... Tolerance.

I support SSM. But I also support the right of people to think and believe what they want to think and believe and the right to express those thoughts or beliefs, no matter how offensive they are to me or anyone else. And any true defender of rights of the individual without restriction from oppressive laws would as well.
 
An excellent piece co-signed by Robert Sarvis, who is the Libertarian candidate for US Senate in my state this year.

The last few years have brought an astonishing moral and political transformation in the American debate over same-sex marriage and gay equality. This has been a triumph not only for LGBT Americans but for the American idea. But the breakthrough has brought with it rapidly rising expectations among some supporters of gay marriage that the debate should now be over. As one advocate recently put it, “It would be enough for me if those people who are so ignorant or intransigent as to still be anti-gay in 2014 would simply shut up.”

The signatories of this statement are grateful to our friends and allies for their enthusiasm. But we are concerned that recent events, including the resignation of the CEO of Mozilla under pressure because of an anti-same-sex- marriage donation he made in 2008, signal an eagerness by some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticize or to persuade those who disagree. We reject that deeply illiberal impulse, which is both wrong in principle and poor as politics.

We support same-sex marriage; many of us have worked for it, in some cases for a large portion of our professional and personal lives. We affirm our unwavering commitment to civic and legal equality, including marriage equality. At the same time, we also affirm our unwavering commitment to the values of the open society and to vigorous public debate—the values that have brought us to the brink of victory.

(Read more)

Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both | RealClearPolitics

I am very much of the opinion that gays are just other guys and gals that are pursuing their idea of happiness, hurting nobody and fully legitimate in their behavior.

But I also think that if it would be much more acceptable to a lot of people, if guys did whatever they like, but were less in your face and loud about it. That gets on people's nerves. But that is okay. If they think risking the backlash is worth it? Fine by me.

But I do think it is rather an aggravation that gays continously maintain that gays living together is 'the same' as heterosexuals living together. There are;, of course, similarities. No doubt some sociological advantages are the same. But others just aren't there. True that technology may have taken a lot of the demographic strength out of this particular social instrument, but that does not mean that two boys living together are doing the sociologically same thing with the statistically same reproductive impact as a girl and boy living together. Now, I am not sure that we should subsidize a social instrument that in an as many contend overpopulated world that produces more kids. But that is the procreation of the society is the major reason for subsidized marriage without which the subsidies should be stopped. If this were what homosexuals were demanding that would be equal and logically based treatment. But to demand equal access to receive taxpayers' money for simply living together is silly and looks seedy.
 
Well if that happened the company would probably find it self we massive loss of business just like Mozilla probably would have faced. If no one brought it up or he didn't donate in the first place it wouldn't be an issue. You do need to be tolerant but you also to be on the offensive.

Targeting individuals in order to chill debate is the opposite of a what a system of open governance is supposed to look like. If those folks were really that upset about people's positions in 2008, methinks they wouldn't have voted for the man they put in the White House. It wasn't the position of the guy, it was a chance to make an example of someone who could be publicly harmed.
 
The CEO of Mozilla damaged the company because if it. You have freedom of speech but you do not have the right to not punched in the face or hated for those opinions.

Ah...since that would be assault, yeah, you do.
 
Blistering example of "tolerance" from the rabid left. It makes me laugh every time I read or hear a liberal or more, a progressive, use the term... Tolerance.

I support SSM. But I also support the right of people to think and believe what they want to think and believe and the right to express those thoughts or beliefs, no matter how offensive they are to me or anyone else. And any true defender of rights of the individual without restriction from oppressive laws would as well.

Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.

You really don't get it: the Mozilla CEO did not have his freedom infringed upon. Freedom of speech means freedom from the government punishing you for your speech. It does not mean freedom from any consequences from the rest of society. You are advocating a world where people don't have the freedom to vote with their wallets. If Chick Fil A or Mozilla does something I don't like, I can go with a competitor. That's my individual freedom, along with everyone else in a free market that you allegedly support. Well, unless the free market's result is something you disagree with, then it's bad.

He had every right to make that donation, and to express his beliefs. And he did. Are you literally suggesting that boycotts violate free speech?
 
Last edited:
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.

You really don't get it: the Mozilla CEO did not have his freedom infringed upon. Freedom of speech means freedom from the government punishing you for your speech. It does not mean freedom from any consequences from the rest of society. You are advocating a world where people don't have the freedom to vote with their wallets. If Chick Fil A or Mozilla does something I don't like, I can go with a competitor. That's my individual freedom, along with everyone else in a free market that you allegedly support. Well, unless the free market's result is something you disagree with, then it's bad.

He had every right to make that donation, and to express his beliefs. And he did. Are you literally suggesting that boycotts violate free speech?

Not at all. The CEO had the right to his opinion, and you have the right to boycott him for it. However, I have the right to flat-out disagree with your tactics and make the case that blistering intolerance and militant behavior will hold the gay rights movement back in the long run.
 
Targeting individuals in order to chill debate is the opposite of a what a system of open governance is supposed to look like. If those folks were really that upset about people's positions in 2008, methinks they wouldn't have voted for the man they put in the White House. It wasn't the position of the guy, it was a chance to make an example of someone who could be publicly harmed.

And when JC Penny ran an ad featuring a same-sex couple, a group calling themselves "million moms" or something organized a boycott. They wanted to make an example out of the entire company.

People have the freedom to do that.
 
Not at all. The CEO had the right to his opinion, and you have the right to boycott him for it. However, I have the right to flat-out disagree with your tactics and make the case that blistering intolerance, militant behavior, and brutalism will hold the gay rights movement back in the long run.

Then quit couching this in some bull**** about who believes in freedom and who doesn't. Just say that: Say that you dislike their tactics. Don't try and pretend you're the defender of individual freedom and I'm the big scary authoritarian when you're just bitching about what people do with that freedom.
 
People have the freedom to do that.

Well, of course. But just because government shouldn't intervene and/or stop you from doing an action, doesn't make that action right.
 
Well, of course. But just because government shouldn't intervene and/or stop you from doing an action, doesn't make that action right.

Who made you the authoritarian on the subject? Why do you get to decide who was right and who was not?
 
Who made you the authoritarian on the subject? Why do you get to decide who was right and who was not?

It's my opinion, just as it's your opinion that the boycott was "right" or "justified."
 
Then quit couching this in some bull**** about who believes in freedom and who doesn't. Just say that: Say that you dislike their tactics. Don't try and pretend you're the defender of individual freedom and I'm the big scary authoritarian when you're just bitching about what people do with that freedom.

Well, you are icing out their opinions and shutting down the opposition. Punishing them for their personal opinions. Of course I'm going to bitch about that, especially since I'm of the opinion that it's only harming the movement as a whole. Get over it.
 
Well, you are icing out their opinions and shutting down the opposition. Punishing them for their personal opinions. Of course I'm going to bitch about that, especially since I'm of the opinion that it's only harming the movement as a whole. Get over it.

You are for shutting down someone opinion that Mozillas CEO should step down.
 
You are for shutting down someone opinion that Mozillas CEO should step down.

How am I shutting down your opinion? It's not like I'm getting you fired from your job or anything. :roll:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom