2 consenting adults; yeah I hear that all the time.  My guess is you would be okay with 2 consenting adults fighting with each other as long as no one else gets hurt. My guess is you wouldn't be man enough to stop a girl getting beat up by her boyfriend because they consented to fighting and it's not hurting anyone else

Quote Tree Trimmed - Conegamer

User also banned for this post,

Carl.

sad that you have to resort to personal insults to try and build your straw man. if you hadn;t noticed consenting adults fight all the time, it is a televised sport. Really you are a very sad individual that you can't even have a civilised debate without trying to throw insults.

Quote Tree Trimmed - Conegamer

Ill tell you what sickens me. The fact that gay marriage is even a debate still. We talk about equality, but it appears some people are still fighting for it. And the whole thing is one group of people is trying to tell the other group of people how to live their lives, you can't do that. Its just not right.

Did you know that anal tearage from anal sex is harmful.  Living with a diaper before u hit retirement sure would be harmfu.  In anatomy we learned that biologically the penis fits in the vagina and not the ear, nose, rectum ( for crap to come out)

Quote Tree Trimmed - Conegamer

It's sad that you back something that you find "a little distasteful" and probably wouldn't do yourself.  If I really felt the need to back something up I would try to fully support my point of view and "practice what you preach"

If your going to attack my character or values then atleast have yours figured out first

Quote Tree Trimmed - Conegamer

Err.. what? Do you know what you are saying? Nanarchy is saying that he doesn't not mind what 2 consenting adults do, if he mentioned 'hurt' it's not physical, it's an expression because they are literally not hurting anyone, so why do objectors care if it's not directly hurting them?

You know boxing exists right? 2 consenting adults beating the crap out of each other for sport and other people's entertainment. It's in their right to do this and neither is being forced into it but as soon as the ref notices any kind of trouble for one of the boxers in the knowledge that it could hurt perminantly, he stops it.

Now a fight between a man and a woman in boxing would never happen. Let's say in public it is happening, both want to fight and they start going at it. Morally good people might stop the fight regardless of gender to stop people getting hurt. They'd try and get these people to work out their differences in ways that can physically injure people.

I'm not entirely sure what you point was above here but it came off really badly. Yes it's not great a man lost his job but it's just a job. He will get another, one less in the public eye and less open to critisism, he got the job because he was well qualified so his career is not ruined. Banning perminantly someone from being able to marry the person they love is worse. No one has an issue with those that give to gay rights organisations because it's usually in the movement for freedom for all people so we are all equal. 

Let's keep the quote trees down, alright? There shouldn't be any more than 2 quotes per post.

Also, it shouldn't really have to be said but keep to the topic. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. You've been warned before, so there's absolutely no excuse for it.

Then that's not freedom of association, that's forced association, which is immoral. You are being forced to associate with people you don't want to, in order to marry them.

I was directly responding to your point about marriage being a privilege and not a right, not with your general point.

Marriage is a right, but just being a right doesn't entitle you to force somebody to assist you with it. We have the right to own property, that doesn't mean we have the right to force people to give us property. We have the right to own arms, that doesn't mean we are entitled to take guns from those who don't want to give them to us, we just have to go elsewhere.

Sadly I have to go to work, so I can't respond til I'm off. So good day to you all til then.

Well, after reading the comments, it seems I have come to the consensus of the opposing opinion. It is okay for there to be two sides of this debate, yet only one side has the right to support their side (whether it be with money or by voting) without fear of losing their job. See, that just doesn't sit well with me.

It also seems to be the norm to compare this to him supporting the KKK and Nazis, two groups that hated specific people and even went so far with their hate to murder thousands/millions of them. This comparison can't be more ridiculous, yet seems to be brought up all the time. It also just seems like an attempt to demonize the opposition. From what I have seen, the opponents to gay marriage don't hate gays, they want to preserve what they feel is the sanctity of marriage. They don't want gays carted off to concentration camps. Or whipped. Or lynched. Or gassed. I'm sure many of them encounter gay individuals on an almost weekly basis, and treat them like human beings. Personally, I think we should address the divorce rate if we're talking about the sanctity of marriage, but I still feel they have the right to feel the way they do.

Like I said before, it's not like these people merely voiced their opposition to his views and personally decided to stop using Firefox. No, they wanted him gone. And they weren't going to let up until Mozilla got rid of him. Now, if this behavior is okay to you, my question is, where does it end? Is it okay to go to every company, go through their ranks, find everyone who doesn't support gay marriage, and have them ousted? Get rid of anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the work force in America? If that sounds preposterous to you, then why was it okay to do that in this instance?