Bigotry against traditional marriage is unacceptable. Those espousing the unnatural unions of two same-sexed persons hold logically indefensible positions. They should not therefore be allowed to keep their jobs.
It is impossible to justify holding beliefs about same-sex “marriage”. Only religion bashers and hateful discriminators do. Saying you are against traditional religious belief is like saying you want to lynch a black man for the color of his skin, especially when you consider modern science proves that people are born religious and lack free will and thus have no choice but to be religious. And if somebody is born a certain way, then anything they do in that way must therefore be right. Religious people who insist on the sanctity of tradition are just that way.
This is the Twenty-first Century and you would have thought by now religious intolerance would have been banished. But it has not been. There are still people among us who hold irrational and hateful opinions against the natural law! These people should be written out of polite society. Ostracized.
Yes, it now cool to be for traditional marriage, but being against it should lose you your job. We need to find out who each of these prejudiced people are. Name them and shame them. Being against traditional marriage is being against equality. Being against traditional marriage is being against freedom. Nobody should be allowed to be for unnatural unions, not in this day and age.
Those who have supported same-sex “marriage” in the past must pay. We need organization at the large scale. We must mobilize Twitter and Facebook armies which threaten the employers of these bigots with boycotts. Companies must not be allowed to associate with the hateful. If they won’t fire their employees, we just won’t do business with them.
Especially those companies with bigots in positions of powers and those with numerous religious employees must be held accountable. If business do not fire bigots, then these business give the appearance of supporting bigotry. They are complicit with and in that bigotry. Having any employee on staff who holds the wrong political opinion is as if that businesses itself is discriminatory to religion and tradition. This is or should be illegal. These people ought to be jailed.
Every business must issue policies of non-discrimination against those who hold religious beliefs. We cannot let intolerance stand.
Those who have been found to support same-sex “marriage” in the past must be located. Most of them surely left traces of their hatefulness. Their blog posts must be rooted out. See if they gave money to groups like GLAAD. Emails they have written in support of their bigotry must be made public. Conversations they have made when in the place of their employment must be publicly aired.
We must be merciless in our attacks. These people—these scum—had their chance to recant and they blew it. Continued support for same-sex “marriage” is now intolerable, and tolerate it we won’t. Yes, the bigots who supported same-sex “marriage” had freedom of speech on their side. But believing in freedom of speech cannot be a trump card. Freedom of speech doesn’t exclude having to deal with the consequences of what a man says. Now these anti-social people must face the consequences.
It is our right to punish those who disagree with us. We must exercise that right to the fullest of our abilities. No stone must be unturned. We will find everybody who is or was against us and destroy them. It is our right. It is the marketplace speaking! No attack is too strong.
If anybody has given money to despicable groups like GLAAD, and if they don’t when confronted of their hate-speech give a higher amount to a religious organization that promotes genuine marriage, then they’re out.
If anybody who has made public statements in support of unnatural unions, they must recant and make twice as many public statements in similar venues saying they now understand that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Else they’re out.
There is no excuse in the hate-filled anti-religious to say their opinions are a matter of their personal business. Their “personal” business affects the rest of us. Hiding behind “privacy” is absurd.
Join me in signing this post, which now functions as a petition. It’s time to end the discrimination. Let your voice be heard!
—————————————————————————–
You get the idea (Update: I really hope you get the idea): EVERY argument, descriptor, and “solution” was pulled from arguments the foolish made in hounding Eich to his doom. I cleaned up the language of course. Progressives are notoriously vulgar.
Thanks Matt, I subscribe….
Join me in signing this post,
Ok, here’s my
X.
Hi Bill, I must honestly say I can’t even formally follow your reasoning in this article. At first I thought your site had been hacked, because normally you’re much more coherent. Seriously, how do you connect being for gay marriage with being against freedom? Or is this some finger exercise in Orwellian Writing? I’m a bit at a loss here, maybe you can clear this up a bit…
Peter,
Be sure not to miss the end italicized note.
(I don’t believe Peter’s native language is English. But his English is orders of magnitude better than my German!)
Ah thanks, missed the post scriptum. So it was a finger exercise 🙂 Still makes no sense though. When one person says that if you eat chocolate and don’t clean your teeth, they will rot, and you write an article claiming that if you don’t eat chocolate and do clean your teeth, they will rot, this will not have the desired effect of exposing the “foolish progressives”, but will make you look incoherent at best, and foolish at worst.
I also don’t think it is helpful to blanket the term “foolish progressives” on everybody who thinks gay people should have the same legal rights as everyone else. I sure think they should, and I didn’t sign any petition to oust some browser CEO.
About the notorious vulgarity: beats burning 3 trillion dollars on senseless wars while destroying the lives of thousands I guess. Not sure if the two (soap in mouth / urge to destroy) are causally connected or even correlated, maybe you can do an analysis on that 😉
I’d like to hear your version of the logic of my position.
I am in a traditional marriage. I do not bash religion nor do I discriminate. I support same-sex marriage. I do not want to lynch a black man.
“Bigotry against traditional marriage is unacceptable.”
True. Yet how can I be in a traditional marriage and still accept same-sex marriage? And I don’t think this position is unique since in most countries, this position is held by the majority.
I believe your tactic to shame those who support same-sex marriage will be as successful as those who attempt to shame climate change skeptics.
btw, here’s some background on the story: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/04/how-mozilla-lost-its-ceo-brendan-eich.html
Briggs, I suspect your post is actually in reference to the actions of Hampton Catlin. Wikipedia states:”Catlin is married to his husband Michael. Together they made headlines in late March, 2014, for starting a boycott against Mozilla for appointing “anti-gay” Brendan Eich as their CEO. Eich had previously donated $1,000 to California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that banned marriage equality in the state. In response, Catlin and Michael called for Mozilla to either release Eich from his position or for a boycott of the company.
Today he was named the Chief Tecnology Officer of Moovweb (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/moovweb-appoints-hampton-catlin-chief-215132908.html)
Catlin’s reward for selling his soul. He sold it cheep.
Briggs,
Even though I don’t lose sleep over the idea of gay marriage, I was right there with you until this:
“These people ought to be jailed.”
If you and kind want to protest/boycott people and companies that promote same sex marriage – have at it! More power to you! Make ’em go bankrupt. Just leave the police and courts out of it (and the same goes for your opposition as well).
See that? The market can decide winners and losers. Problem solved, and everyone is happy!
Mr. Briggs,
These arguments are as senseless as can be imagined. Your reasoning is so unreasoned that I almost would think this *satire* but for the extraordinarily serious and unhumored tone which does and has always mark(ed) all your other articles. While some of your assertions are fairly tame, and perhaps, from the point of view of you and *your* ilk, reasoned, others are so absurd that I would actually dare place you at the far extreme of your troupe. Your intolerance, sir, is intolerable, and will not stand. It’s an abomination, Mr. Briggs, and I regret to inform you that I am boycotting this site until this hurtful and offensive post is taken down.
I’m surprised that many of the commentators (???—those who comment) don’t get the point of your rather broad satire. It isn’t a satire against homosexual marriages. It’s a satire against those who would stifle people who are for traditional marriage. You can be for or against marriage for homosexuals, for homosexuals to enjoy civil rights (and that doesn’t include forcing people to approve of their “lifestyle”), but against denying someone a right to a job because he follows his conscience on morality. But then liberals/leftists are notoriously without a sense of humor or irony.
Watch you backside, Briggs, the gays will come after you.
( *I* am only jesting, of course. )
No no no…. do not “fire!” Find them. Sniff them out. Keel them!
EVERYBODY Good grief! Can you not see the postscript? See also Bob’s comment.
Fair enough! Yes “progressives” can engage in inane witch hunts, maybe just as much as “conservatives”. And in both cases those of us who should object from the “same” side as the offenders often fail to do so.
Touche’
how can I be in a traditional marriage and still accept same-sex marriage?
The same way you can be a dog-owner and still accept that cats are dogs, we suppose.
Briggs,
I’ve been a fan of your blog for quite some time now. Today, my view of the high intellectual quality of some of your readers and those who comment has been largely diminished. Regardless of which side of the SSM issue one finds oneself, your post should make sense as intended (and stated in the postscript).
Ye Olde Statisician: I don’t know if cats are dogs but I do know that if you call my dog’s tail a leg he still only has four legs.
Well done. Very surprised by the number of commenters who did not catch the supreme irony and sarcasm even with the pre and post-script directions.
Would it be they missed those very important disclaimers or are they hardened to only allow this type of behavior from one perspective and not any other?
Have we grown so accustomed to this type of verbal inane garbage from leftists that we let it go by casually? Do those of us that might find this offensive have no issue with it anywhere else?
I don’t know what the pro/anti same sex marriage is all about. Well, I do, but it doesn’t make sense. First of all, current problems with the institution of marriage in the United States have nothing to do with homosexual people. The real social problem is that marriage is going out of style, and there is our problem. In some cases married people give marriage a bad name.
To me the issue is, leave people the hell alone. Gay people getting married in no way will affect the institution of marriage. We should, instead, be encouraging as many people to get married as we can.
Homosexuality is the devil’s plan. It is all in the book of Revelation.
www,prophetamos3m.com/6.html
cpola – It probably is in the Book of Revelation. So what? That book reads like the ravings of someone with untreated schizophrenia.
There’s a larger point. Many religionists argue from authority, using whatever book they deem holy as an authority. Unfortunately, argument from authority is a known and accepted logical fallacy.
I don’t accept that any holy book is the word of God; at best, such books are the writings of people who genuinely thought that they were writing down God’s word. At worst, they are simply made up – as with everything in Scientology. And which applies, it is impossible to know.
It probably is in the Book of Revelation. So what? That book reads like the ravings of someone with untreated schizophrenia.
Actually, it reads like an “apocalypse,” a genre common to that time, that rails in coded terms against the Neronian tyranny, safely re-labeled as “Babylon.” The Late Modern tendency to read everything as naive narrative-instruction, like a tech manual, can lead to confusion in many regards.
There’s a larger point. Many religionists argue from authority, using whatever book they deem holy as an authority.
Except that the nature of the marriage act preceded any and all of these books, and preceded even the State. Nowhere in any culture do we find marriage regarded as including homogenous individuals.
Statistician – The pair-bonds in the Sacred Band of Thebes were, if not called marriage, incredibly close to it. That’s one I already know about; I’m fairly sure I could find others.
You are correct. They were not regarded as marriages. The young boy was supposed to carry arms and hold shields for the older man, and to provide him with sexual relief on campaign. “Squires with benefits.” The Greeks ridiculed grown men who played the subservient “bottom” role.
YOS: Check this page for background information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
But even if your statement (“Nowhere in any culture…”) held true, I don’t think that’s a good argument. For example, companies were never regarded as individuals with individual’s rights before probably, and that wouldn’t keep a good libertarian from hailing this as a great achievement of progress.
Peter Hartmann – In my opinion, you’ve chosen a very bad example. The fact that companies have almost all the rights of real, living, organic people and very few of the liabilities (mortality being by far the most important) is (in my opinion, naturally) one of the root causes of today’s economic problems.
Fletcher, yes, you’re probably right. I wasn’t sure of it either, my libertarian-mind-simulator is a bit rusty 😉 Thanks for the input. The observation that libertarianism and hardcore-capitalism often are deeply intertwined (and fundamentalist christianism too, which is really strange) presumably led to me considering this.
Check this page for background information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Wikipedia… But even at the link we find such admissions that Greek practice was pederasty, and regarding Rome,we read:
It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law.
It is left to the Reader to discern why the statement As did other philosophies and religions of the time, increasingly influential Christianity promoted marriage for procreative purposes makes no sense.
Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church.
Boswell’s tendentious book has been trashed by historians and scholars of Greek for its poor translations,but it still gets trotted out because it reaches the politically correct conclusions. (It is the Lysenkoism of Byzantine studies.) One woman, for example, mentioned that she had gone through a ceremony of adelphopoiesis, and there was nothing sexual about it. It is a ritual vow of friendship, much like blood-brotherhood, and does not involve either marriage of cohabitation.
All in all, the Wikipedia tells us that
a) there have always been homosexual practices.
b) these practices have sometimes been tolerated or even, in decadent eras, flaunted.
c) in no case were they recognized as marriage. (oops)
And no, that the depraved Nero staged mock conubia with some of his slaves and catamites (people who could not say no) does not mean that Roman civilization recognized some kind if “same sex marriage.” It meant that Nero was depraved and was regarded as such by the Romans.
+ + +
companies were never regarded as individuals with individual’s rights before probably
They are not individuals and do not have individual rights. They cannot vote, marry, etc.
Corporations are legal persons, a different matter entirely. This means that if a union invests it pension fund in a corporation, neither the union itself, nor its members are individually liable for judgments against the corporation. Their liability is limited to their investment. (An unincorporated company, such as a partnership or a sole proprietorship, is not limited.)
Corporate persons were invented in the middle ages. The original name was universitates, but that word had shrunk to mean only one kind of corporation: the university. It also applied to chartered free towns, guilds of workers, medical societies, companies of players, etc. There is extensive discussion of this development, which enabled Western law, economics, parliamentary governance, and science to develop, in Toby Huff’s book, The Rise of Early Modern Science: China, Islam, and the West.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Rise-Early-Modern-Science/dp/0521529948