Serves Eich and Mozilla right for caving in to, of all things a Twitter campaign, don't complain about being bullied if you don't have the guts to stand up for your principles.Those who protest the loudest over trivial crap like the Eich affair seem to be White middle class heterosexual women of a "certain age" and their equally addled but equally man loving 25 year old daughters.
The really funny thing is that I've never met a Gay person who holds Left Wing views, no doubt Gay Leftists represent a minority of a minority but in a broader sense conservatism is more typical of anyone who is married with kids and is not mentally ill. A person with a family to think of as their main priority inevitably holds conservative views, you can't care about the future of your children and still be a Leftist, the two are mutually exclusive.

If you think you have good arguments against carnivorous vegetarianism, then make them. Nobody will stop you. If they turn out to be bad arguments, then that will be pointed out, and if you persist in them you will be asked to explain your motivations in putting them forward. If your motivations are personal and emotional rather than rational -- if you are fanatical rather than misguided -- and you persist in them, you will be revealed as an irrational and possibly dangerous person, and forfeit the respect to which rational people are entitled.

Yuyutsu: “Why should the state administer and register marriages in the first place?”

You are absolutely right. There is not one good reason but there may be bad ones. It could be that the push for same-sex marriage is not about marriage at all and is really about abusing the authority of government to endorse homosexuality as equal in all respects to heterosexuality. It is not about marriage equality but about getting someone with authority and power to endorse homosexual relationships. You could have marriage equality simply by eradicating the Marriage Act altogether where every couple who claimed to be married by their own definition should be considered married to anyone else who really cares. Having someone else affirm your relationship only matters to those who are insecure about their relationship since there are no practical advantages to having it authorised by the government. So called ‘next of kin rights’ should be awarded on grounds that are not dependent on possession of a marriage certificate which guarantees nothing in relation to the quality of that relationship.

Old man: “Marriage as traditionally understood is absolutely vital to the welfare of the world.”

Marriage does not need to be excused or justified. It is something people do because they see it as a way of showing their love for each other. That is all it is and that is enough. Society existed ok long before marriage was invented and will continue on long without it. Talking of marriage as the haven for children and thus the building block of society is a slight on all those marriages where no children exist and on all those perfectly loving relationships where there is no certificate attached. Are these people parasites on the rest in terms of welfare of the world? Should laws be enacted to force people to pull their weight by marrying and procreating? There is only one good reason to be married and that is because you love the person you are marrying – anything else is an excuse to push some ideology

Every point made in this article could apply to multiculturalism/panculturalism/panracialism.

Dare to doubt or reject the Utopian Leftist agenda, and out come the torches and pitchforks.

This is standard operating procedure now for anyone challenging *any* part of that agenda.

Those who chant the loudest about "freedom and tolerance" support tyranny in practice.

The irony is that many of these imported ethnic groups are more sexist, racist and homophobic than Westerners ever were.
But we must tolerate the intolerant!

Jon J, what is so damn special about "rational" decisions?

What is "rational" about gay marriage?
What is "rational" about love or sexual attraction?

They're "personal and emotional".
Nothing to do with reason.

So are the fanatical reactions of the protesters.

Reason lives in the science lab.
It rarely ventures into the bedroom (or Leftist politics).

AJ Philips, and would all those posturing loudmouths really have made a dint in Mozilla's bank balance?

As usual with these types, they're all bark and no bite.
They have no real power.

Mozilla may have gained as many users as they lost, as some people would appreciate a stance for free speech.

Dear JBSH,

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

So had the Department of Veteran's Affairs held a different view, could your answer then be a 'No'?

Since when is there any correlation between government and morality?

Dear Hasbeen,

The old and proven technique to expose anti-Semites (http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/62800/of-jews-and-bicycle-riders) is to state the following:

"Every trouble on earth is due to the Jews and the bicycle riders!"

To which your typical anti-Semite responds: "Why, what's wrong with bicycle riders?", allowing you to reply: "and what's wrong with the Jews?"!

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

Nor do we have such freedom now, under the control of Western stupidity.

The keyword, Sir, is "stupidity", not "Muslim": none deserves to be under its control.

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

You are the boss, Sir - you should have every freedom to enjoy your road. No one should wobble on your road, fool or otherwise, without your explicit permission: that would constitute a criminal trespass!

Ah Shockadelic. As per usually you have missed the point.

<<...and would all those posturing loudmouths really have made a dint [sic] in Mozilla's bank balance?>>

I can't say for sure. Eich seemed to think they would and did what he thought was best for the company.

<<Mozilla may have gained as many users as they lost, as some people would appreciate a stance for free speech.>>

Eich's freedom of speech was not stifled. That was the whole point of what I quoted. And what about the freedom of speech and choice of those who disagreed? One person's freedom of speech does not override another's right to protest against what is said.