Please elucidate. How did you come to this analogy?

Physicality matters and for as much as I support same-sex marriage–at least until we abolition state marriage–I realize that making someone unequal through labels is very different than giving them separate physical infrastructure.

I encourage you to not rely on gerv’s statement that civil union is equal to marriage. That’s a handy assertion, but it is untrue. Go do some research.

Likewise, do not rely on Gerv’s assertion that he is not a homophobe. You should rely on the people who he has attacked, instead. We know them when we feel the rocks hit us. Someone who tells us that we do not deserve the same civil rights that he does– that is hatred in a very practical sense.

My agenda is that I, and all other GLBT folk, are human beings who have the same rights that hetero folk have.

That’s my agenda.

If you disagree with that, then yes, I do call your words hate speech.

Asa: Same sex civil rights are not a matter of “separate but equal” because separate always ends up being not equal.

It doesn’t matter what “Gerv made clear,” because he is wrong in his assumptions. He is wrong when he says that gays claimed they would be happy with civil union. He is wrong when he says that civil union is the same as marriage. It’s easy for him to b wrong– it isn’t his life that’s been placed on hold.

Please, before you continue with your ignorant and insulting argument, take some time to research the topic. Don’t rely on Gerv’s arguments. He is in no way an authority on the problems of living GLBT in a hetero world.

By accident, Mozilla is a very successful NGO and therefore capable to employ poeple like corporations do. As a user of Fireofx and as a customer of these employees I expect them to behave in accordance with the goals of their employer and that means that they as opposed to poeple employed in other producers of web software need to cope with the fact that Mozilla does not govern this place like corporations do but instead opts (in accordance to its goal of open communication) to let the public know that employees of Mozilla have the same discussions between gays and Christians as the general public. I refuse the analogy to some corporate weblog. It is dead wrong. Poeple who work for Mozilla need to be willing to stand up for themselves if some other employees publish something in here that differs from their view.

As for homophobes and Christians: Sometimes Christians are homophobes and sometimes Christians are Christians who are judged by gays to be homophobes while they -as opposed to US-liberals, the European mainstream and me- are only concerned with the copyright and the scope of the word marriage. The concern on itself is not enough to establish that someone is homophobe or else every gay who is concerned about the word marriage is “christophobe” by analogy. I do not know Mr Markham and the material he posted in here isn’t enough to me to judge his credentials on that matter. For sure, quite all gays in here imply he is homophobe and I hope they do so because of personal encounters rather than because of his post.

Physicality matters and for as much as I support same-sex marriage–at least until we abolition state marriage–I realize that making someone unequal through labels is very different than giving them separate physical infrastructure.

Given that hate speech is a legal term that varies by country, and a controversial one at that, I don’t think there is much use in debating that, specifically. However, I think anyone can understand the difference between speaking from a position of more power and a position of less power. For example, what your boss says to you carries more weight than what you say to them. “Gay people should have the right to get married” is not an equivalent statement to “Only straight people should have the right to get married” precisely because straight people do hold that legal right. If there were homosexual people on this thread claiming that Christians should lose the right to marriage because they are sinners, THAT would be closer to an equivalent statement (though still not quite there, since trying to take away a right isn’t quite the same as trying to prevent someone having it in the first place).

The only thing that gay marriage takes away from Christians is the “right” to control social values and legal rights to protect themselves and exclude others.

In what way does anyone else’s marriage change one’s own?

On legal matters: To my knowledge there is no fine whatsoever for gay couples if they say that they are “married” (and everybody understands what they communicate) even though the legal institution’s name is “civil union” in many first world nations. Thus the right to speak freely is not violated even though the legal institutions may have different names. Moreover, equal treatment is different from broadening the meaning of a word. If civil unions grant the same rights as marriage, gays do have equal treatment even though they are unsuccessful in broadening the meaning of the word marriage. What this really is about is the “ownership” of the word marriage. If a religious person fights for the copyright of the word marriage by defending its narrow scope -and does so without using ad hominem attacks as Mr Markham did- then this is as much of a civil right and as legitimate as equal treatment for gays. And Mozilla as an organization commited to free speach should be proud to host this discussion.

Marriage is a tool for the state to control you. I thought you of all people would be unwilling to cede the state more power since the state is the domain of the powerful, the capitalist, the cissexual.

I can’t abide anyone who supports giving the state more power to trample my rights as a free person. The state who jails anarchists for their belief that state power is inimical to freedom of the individual and damaging to a society of free association.