The article at http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/ puts the ‘Eich’ issue into perspective:

“[Eich] was selected to be the CEO of Mozilla, Inc. The core of his job was going to be building the value of Mozilla. Although the donation had been known about by some for quite some time, it didn’t garner much attention until now. Once word of it became widely circulated, the knowledge led to employees threatening their own resignations, users choosing a different web browser (which would mean less revenue from Google and other add-on downloads), volunteers saying that they would no longer invest time in Mozilla projects, and donors announcing that they wouldn’t give money to the Mozilla Foundation. That created a serious risk of Mozilla losing earnings and resources. Mozilla was going to become less valuable — and that’s the precise opposite result that Eich was charged with generating.”

…and…

“Indeed [Eich] does [have a right to free speech], and he is exercising it [by choosing to resign instead of recanting or remaining in his position and watching the value of Mozilla suffer for it]. You know who else has a right to free speech? The people objecting to his donation and saying, “I will not work for or with Brendan Eich.” … Should our rights of free speech and free choice be abridged instead?”

While I don’t condone acts of vandalism, I find the rest of the article reassuring. There are many views that were once mainstream but are now considered abhorrent to the extent that expressing them will cause one to be shunned or censured (e.g. Donald Sterling’s remarks).

Social conservatives, once again, will be shown to be on the wrong side of history fifty years from now. Their problem is that they'll pick arbitrary points in time and assume that that’s when we had/have it right, with no objective or scientifically sound reasoning to back it. About the best they can do is appeal to the slippery slope fallacy or scientific ignorance.

But if you want to fight for traditional marriage then fine: my daughter’s worth at least four goats and a camel anyway.

Yuyutsu I detect an impending problem for you.

AS a supporter of our Muslims & now homosexuals, what are you going to do when the Muslims get control.

Will you be in the stone throwing mob, putting the poofters to death, or will you stand in front of them, trying to protect? As I have no interest in either that is only mildly interesting. I do however look forward to the end of this homosexual mirage garbage.

I do really look forward to feminists, dresses in burkas, walking 2 paces behind their ruling men. That would be funny, & quite fitting of course.

Your commentator Jon J has demanded an argument against gay marriage.
Here is one from a 78 year old atheist.
Marriage, as traditionally understood, is an institution established for the nurture and education of children. For most of my life it was stated as such at the commencement of every marriage celebration, even one in the 60s at the Registrar General's Office Queens Square Sydney.

Its modern adaption amounts to a contract between a man an a woman to merge their financial affairs so that on party ( usually the woman) will not be disadvantaged by making his or her career a second priority to the raising of children for the vital 20 years in which raising children corresponds and can conflict with career building.

Marriage as so understood, i.e. as institutionalised monogamy, provides the nuclear family which has provided the basic building block of our society. It is that building block which has provided the only effective way to bring children to the maximum of their potential.

It is that maximum of potential which provided the inventions and innovations which have lifted the first world to huge heights of productivity which has created such wealth for the first world.

The huge population of the world today would not be possible without such innovations for lack of the means to produce, transport and distribute food, shelter, medicines etc.

The innovations of steam power, steel hulled ships, internal combustion engines, harnessing electricity, heavier than air flight, radio, television, skyscrapers, computers internet have all come from societies based on the nuclear family basic building block-- and no other.

Other societies with are lifting or have lifted their countries into the first world have first adopted the same building block.

Marriage as traditionally understood is absolutely vital to the welfare of the world.

A moral test : Should a soldier's boyfriend receive a widow's pension on the death in action of the soldier because they went through a farcical rite which some people want to call a marriage?

Dear Hasbeen,

I can't see how you deduce that I support either Muslims or homosexuals: all I said is that government should get right out of our lives.

Let those who want to fast on Ramdan and pray 5 times a day towards Mecca do so.
Let those who want to have sexual-intercourse with others of their own gender do so.
Let those who want to maintain a traditional family do so.

Let parents who want their children to learn that homosexuality is wonderful, send them to schools which teach that.
Let parents who want their children to learn that Muhammad was the greatest prophet of all times, send them to schools which teach that.
Let parents who want their children to learn Christian family values, send them to schools which teach that.

Let those who want to wear a burka do so.
Let those who want to wear European clothes do so.
Let those who want to wear nothing do so.

Let the government support none of the above.
Let the government suppress none of the above.

All I ask for myself, is the freedom to ride a bicycle without wearing a pot on my head.

@Old Man. you ask "A moral test : Should a soldier's boyfriend receive a widow's pension on the death in action of the soldier because they went through a farcical rite which some people want to call a marriage?"

My answer is a most definite yes. It seems the government, and the Department of Veteran's Affairs hold the same view:

http://www.dva.gov.au/eligibilityandclaims/whoiseligible/family/Pages/index.aspx

Superficial answer Yuyutsu, you won't have the choice of letting everyone do their own thing, once we are controlled by Muslim stupidity.

But even more importantly, we have a more serious conflict.

You want the freedom to ride around without a pot on your head.

I want the freedom to drive my car, without some fool, head potted or otherwise, wobbling around on my road on a bike.

I guess it is going to have to be cream puffs at dawn at 10 paces for us.