Again that's wrong. disapproval has gone up over 2013-14. approval has gone slightly down. Below is the average of the polls. If you want to make the claim you are making mark you need to show a trend, not cherry pick one data point.
The only area it's grown in support is among democrats. And they've moved to "somewhat support". Strong opposition still vastly outweighs strong support. It's like you didn't think anybody would actually read the article.
Do be fair, I do not think its the LGBT community who are causing the uproar. Sure, there are those like mcmark on their holy crusade against the unjust hetro's who have persecuted them in decades past. Its more so the straight people who feel like there are moral injustices for something they never experienced.
While this is hardly a huge difference, it does mark the first time that the poll has shown a net positive for the law in terms of popularity. November is a long way away. IMO democrats need to stand up and embrace ACA. Be proud of it and make republicans explain why they want to take affordable healthcare away from millions of people. Looking forward to that debate.
Wait---so your point is that there are massive problems in the world, so massive that we shouldn't care at all, so that as long as there are big problems, we shouldn't even attempt to tackle small ones, even if the attitude to tackle the latter tends to correlate with drive to tackle the former? That seems very nonsensical and hypothetical to me. Don't assume that just because people have one view on this they do nothing for other causes, in fact if I were to assume something, I'd assume that people who were activists for one cause would be active for many. And if you're arguing that you simply don't care that the products you buy harm others, then well, there's a word for that somewhere.
mc, you fell for the trap. Given the fact that there is NO RATIONAL argument on this issue, people have resorted to saying this is a waste of precious mental energy and time, like the 8 hours they spend on training for pickup games, or listening to Selena Gomez songs. Nevermind the fact that people who develop stances on these issues are much more coherent and able to develop reasonable stances on others. Somehow "ohhhh why are we wasting time on gay rights" is a theme. I'll tell you why, by the way, we are spending time on this topic: because 60 years ago, gays were executed and castrated, 40 years ago lobotomized and imprisoned, and 20 years ago tortured to death for being who they were, and only one year ago were denied equal rights for no rational reason---and now in the near future the foundation is being set so that will NEVER happen again. If you think this is a waste of time, you have no sense of history, and your place in it.
Can you dispute the facts or are you just going to toss out meaningless words? Alan Turing was castrated for being homosexual despite the fact that he was the father of computer science, and basically deserves a huge amount of credit for being one of the key players in Allied victory in WW2---by breaking Enigma. (About) Twenty years ago refers to Matthew Shepard. Let's work to make sure this kind of crap never happens again. This is why building a foundation for gay rights, one that only up to a year ago entire courts of law were allowed to discriminate against irrationally, is a crucial point of discussion. thanks.
Hyperbole at its finest.*smh* 30 years ago there was an official Gay and Lesbian Student Association in UT already. Were you even born?
Northside Storm must be thinking that the student association meeting must be a trap to lure out the gays and the lesbians in the school so they would be lobotomies, imprisoned and tortured.
oh, hey, anecdotal evidence! http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=5016775 learn your place in history
Do you even know what you're up against, MamboRock, seeing as you seem to pride yourself on being born in those times?
what freedom are u referring to? How ignorant does somebody have to be to compare slavery to not having a marriage recognized by the government?
Except donating to support Prop-8 was part of a political campaign. While I didn't agree with that proposition it was a legal referendum done according to CA law. That is your choice but everything has to weighed. As I've said I've had clients who've I've not agreed with. I think in the case of Eich in 2008 his position was actually the majority position in CA since Prop-8 passed. Does that mean that anyone in CA who voted or supported Prop-8 in 2008 that we should not work with them or do business otherwise? That is a lot of Californians. As I've said consistently we live in a diverse and pluralistic society where many people share different views. I've noticed many of you taking Eich to task have also argued against laws like what was proposed in AZ and KS regarding allowing businesses to discriminate against people they don't like. Now I agree that is a somewhat different situation since that is a legal enshrinement of discrimination but the principle is similar. I think we can still work for social change at the same time going about earning a living and dealing with people who we don't agree with on a regular basis. Let me put a spin on this issue based on the proposed KS law. Would y'all support a law that said that any business is allowed to refuse service for people who do not agree with their position on same sex marriage? For example could a catering company refuse to do business with the Mormons?
The historical record on forced imprisonment of homosexuals, thier chemical castration at the hands of government, their forced lobotomies, and the death penalty threat looming over them based merely on their identity is a level of atrocity that finds itself with very few appropriate historical comparisons. Like the Holocaust, you'd be tempted to say---and then we must be reminded that homosexuals were one of the groups explicitly targeted as well as Jews and the Roma. So---huh.
Weren't you the one who made the distinction that there is no real First Amendment issue because government didn't intervene? Eich could have easily stayed on, or even apologized, and helped move on with Mozilla. Nobody was holding jail time to his head. Instead he chose to jump ship because maybe he realized he was heading a movement of coders that are directly against his core set of values. I wouldn't be too sad about his employment prospects---any engineer with half a head in Silicon could be hired, never mind the creator of JavaScript. Him and Mozilla were just a terrible fit even if they kept it under wraps for a long time, and both probably realized it because of this incident. Mozilla is not a corporation so much as a movement. Who leads the movement, and their values are essential, because Mozilla doesn't compensate by money so much as it does with the freedom to pursue good ideas.
