The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Mountain View, CA-based Mozilla, maker of the open-source Firefox browser, appointed a new CEO on March 24: Brendan Eich.  He's a Mozilla co-founder and the creator of JavaScript.  However, it came to light that in 2008, Eich contributed $1,000 to CA Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that sought to ban gay marriage in the state.

Upon Eich's hiring, there were some protests (http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-mozilla-to-protest-ceo-hire/) from the developer community.  Additionally, dating site OKCupid changed their landing page for Firefox browser users to a special page denouncing Eich's position and recommending that visitors use a different browser.  These protests culminated yesterday in Eich stepping down as CEO (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/mozilla-ceo-resigns-calif-gay-marriage-ban-campaign/story?id=23181711).

In the aftermath, I have seen some comments that Eich's free speech is being stifled, and that the supporters of SSM have become more tyrannical than those who would/did restrict their rights in the first place.  Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

To be clear: if Brendan Eich wants to support groups that wish to ban same-sex marriage, that is his right, in exactly the same sense that if he wants to support groups that promote white supremacy, or anti-semitism, or polygamy, or decriminalization of prostitution, that is also his right.  However, his right to express his support for such causes does not give him immunity to the free market consequences of his actions.

In much the same way that openly opposing interracial marriage was once perfectly acceptable but is now considered unacceptable bigotry, opposing same-sex marriage is rapidly approaching a point where it will be considered extreme.  Had Eich underwent the proverbial come-to-Jesus moment and issued a statement about his heartfelt change of mind on the topic and his regret for supporting such a discriminatory law, this would not have been an issue; the problem is that he appears to still believe that SSM should be illegal.  And that's just not going to fly.

Ultimately, Eich's problem is that he was 10 years too late.  In 2004, he would have been cheerfully welcomed into the fold with proud anti-SSM views, but in today's America, he's behind the social curve.

I've been following this one and agree 100% that all he had to do was apologize and say his views have changed in those years since his donation.

And, for the fuck of shit, I'm so tired of people thinking Freedom of Speech means the freedom to say whatever they want without ANY consequences.

Wait a minute here, I actually support the legalization of prostitution.  Should I not tell people this for fear of being outcasted?

Damn straight.  If you want to have stupid positions and be in business, beware of the free market's evaluation of your freedom of speech.

Am I stupid to favor the legalization of prostitution?

No, I don't think so.

But if you openly praised this position and owned a business in the bible belt, don't be surprised if you faced backlash.

Exactly.  I'm not sure why so many people fail to understand the simple concept that Freedom of Speech provides legal protection.  Legal protection is not the same thing as complete lack of accountability for saying and doing stupid things.  Freedom of speech might prevent a person from being prosecuted, but it doesn't protect a dumbass from getting fired (or other unpleasant consequence of dumbassitude)

I feel like there needs to be a class or something on this concept. It's the first thing dumbasses trot out to defend people being fired for saying or doing stupid shit.

I support gay marriage.

But I do think that forcing him to resign for holding a position shared by the majority of voters in California has a stifling effect on free speech and exchange of ideas. 

No he isn't protected by the first amendment, but this PC run amok. 

Hoodie, to claim that the majority of voters in California are (present tense) against gay marriage (based on the last vote they took on it) is equivalent to claiming that the majority of voters in America would be in favor of re-electing George W. Bush if it were possible (based on the last vote they took on him).  Opinions change.

And as I stated before, there would not be a problem today with him having that position in 2008 if he renounced it now.  The problem is that he appears to maintain that position.

What are the other consequences that you speak of? Getting fired is the only one that I can think of, and that's not because the employer actually disagrees with the position against gay marriage. It probably has mainly do with losing income. So what are the other consequences?

Being disliked or having the free market reject you or your product.  This is especially true with famous people or people in the public eye with large corporations.  Even if you do keep your job, you can financially suffer because people choose to reject your product because they don't like you.

No-one forced him to resign. the free market made it unpalatable for him to continue at his position. He could have taken the chick-fil-a approach .. said f you all .. and stayed. Blame the free market if you must assign force.

This is especially true for markets where there are many other choices that are relatively the same.  For browsers or fast food, there's another comparable option just across the proverbial (or literal) street.

I don't find much difference between mozilla, opera, IE, or chrome....I have my preference, but they're all generally the same product.  So, if anyone gives the public a reason to choose one over another -- even something small, it's fair game.

There may have been a some shift in the 5 years since, but opposing ssm is still a very mainstream opinion, it is not comparable to wanting to appeal the 13th amendment.  

But, okay to take your example, do you think it would be okay for a company to take the position we won't hire anyone who made a political donation to GWB?  Because that is what he did, he donated to a political cause.

How would you feel if a company in California adopted a policy of not hiring anyone who donated money NoOnProp8.com?

How about this.  It would be against the law to have a policy of refusing to hire blacks, but let's say Hoodie LLC had the following hiring policy, "We will not hire anyone who has ever donated money to: Obama, Jessie Jackson, UNCF, NAACP, Rainbow Coalition or Acorn."  You okay with that or would you claim that violates the CRA?  

If he had done more than just had a political position, different story.  Let say day one he declare that the company is ending benefits to same sex partners in any state where this would not violate the law.  Well then I would agree with the boycott to drive him out.   

At this link (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm), you can see that public support for SSM has went from 39/52 (for/against) in August 2008 to 54/39 (for/against) in February 2014.

Furthermore, at what point did it stop being "mainstream" to oppose interracial marriage?  The very fact that this kind of backlash exists pretty much proves that it's no longer mainstream to oppose SSM.  That is precisely the difference between 2008 and now.

I don't believe political affiliation is a protected status, so therefore a business can say "I won't hire any Democrat" and that's perfectly legal; their customers will respond accordingly.  The same would apply to GWB donators, Romney voters, Republican party members, etc.

Exactly the same way I feel about the topic at hand, and my choices as a consumer would reflect that.  For example, I don't buy products from Chick-Fil-A or Papa John's.

Again, I don't believe political affiliation is a protected status, so the gov't shouldn't be involved.  But I don't think anyone has suggested the gov't get involved, so I'm not sure why you mention the CRA.

I find it rather puzzling that you find support of a government ballot initiative to prohibit SSM as acceptable political speech, but denying benefits to partners (when benefits aren't even a guaranteed part of employment anyway) is a bridge too far.

One of these things is much more impactful than the other, and you've got it backwards.

I don't dislike or hate gays. l interact with several on a regular basis and get along great with them. However, I  find homosexuality as an abnormal behavior. I could give a shit about being disliked by a very small minority. Being famous and rich would only reinforce that. If it was me, I would take my millions and tell everyone to fuck off like FAU said.


And speaking of fast food choices and Chick-fil-A. They seem to be outspoken against homosexuality and doing rather well. Actually, they are thriving. They just overtook KFC by almost $1billion as the leading chicken franchise in the US with only around 1/3 retail locations. Hell, I don't even have time to eat lunch at Chick-fil-A because they are so crowded every day. So much for being disliked or having the free market reject you or your product for disagreeing with the PC crowd. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chick-fil-a-stole-kfc-s-chicken-crown-with-a-fraction-of-the-stores-151835949.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chick-fil-a-stole-kfc-s-chicken-crown-with-a-fraction-of-the-stores-151835949.html)

Great.  But my point is that if you DID care, you can't go citing freedom of speech for people not liking you.

Way off base since we are not discussing a situation where the company had any such position. In fact, he was promoted within his company.

^ Exactly, this is a response from the public at large...not a private entity.

As long as Chick-Fil-A is content to remain a primarily regional franchise (specifically: the South), their political positions shouldn't hurt them.  Given that their business is concentrated in the Bible Belt, making a "religious" stand probably helped them.

I doubt we're going to see Chick-Fil-A expanding internationally any time soon.

Then why hasn't the public at large responded negatively to  Chick-fil-A? As noted earlier, they are thriving. I think we can agree that Chick-fil-A has been more outspoken about a perceived abnormal lifestyle than Mr. Eich's petty donation from 8 years ago. Chick-fil-A has been in the media several time in the past couple years right in everyone's face. Mr. Eich's donation took some digging and 8 year to come to light.

Mozilla is a non profit company and the majority of it's products are free. Chick-fil-A is very much a for profit company and their prices are kind of high. You would think that given those facts that the "public at large" would be able to hurt Chick-fil-A much more than Mozilla by voting with their wallet. Yet, Chick-fil-A is thriving while Mozilla has allowed itself to be intimidated and bullied by the PC crowd. Seems like nothing more than a media fueled PC witch hunt.

Probably a few reasons:
First off, Chik-Fil-A did have backlash, but they rode it out.  Also, Chik-Fil-A can sell more than 1 product to a consumer.  So, you may like Chik-Fil-A's stance and go there more to make up for someone who doesn't.
Browsers aren't the same way.  You use one.

But also, demographically, the demographic that eats fast food chicken is more likely to be conservative, I'm guessing, as compared to a more youthful group that are tech savvy enough to make informed decisions about browsers.

KFC has roughly 3 times the locations, located everywhere in the US. And Chick-fil-A is kicking their ass as primarily a regional franchise in the south. If Chick-fil-A expanded to every market that KFC was in then they would only gain market share over what they already have now. They sure aren't going to lose the lead they already have by expanding. The simple fact is that they provide better service and better quality than the competition and people vote with their money at Chick-fil-A. Mozilla and/or Eich were weak and allowed themselves to be bullied. The weak don't survive!

I dropped Firefox a little while back, unrelated to this issue.

I haven't eaten at Chik-Fil-A in about a decade (aside from one time when someone treated me to lunch), which is too bad, because I like their food.

I could care less about the owner. I love that damn chicken.

You're correct, they rode it out. If Mozilla/Eich rode it out, it would be a non story a month from now.

Pure speculation on your end.

They are exactly the same way. They are both a product. If people who disagreed with Eich were going to boycott Mozilla, then people who agreed with Eich's stance could have changed to Mozilla products to support them. Just like in your example above. All of that is pure speculation on your part. If they would have rode it out, it would have played itself out and the brain dead media sheep would have moved on to another "cause" to harass someone over.

How is that any different than saying, demographically black people eat more fried chicken? I would say that political affiliation is no more an indicator of fried chicken consumption than race or age. As far as I'm concerned, most people like fried chicken.

Perhaps.

Of course, aren't we speculating POSSIBLE causes?  Isn't that the whole point of this thread?


They aren't the same, because you can't use 3 Mozilla browsers, but you can order 3 chicken sandwiches.  Chik-Fil-A received a ton of political support from Palin and others http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79080.html  People who already ate a chik fil A went there MORE to support the cause.  But you can't download mozilla MORE than one time.


I'm not saying that conservatives eat more chicken than liberals.  I'm saying that, as compared to browser usage (and yes, I'm speculating, but based off of known trends) that it's more likely to be conservative.  People who are concerned with different browser types are more likely to be of a younger generation, which skews liberal.

This is really it. Their food is damn good (albeit, a tad expensive). Sure people may boycott them but others will make up for that lost by buying more to support Chick-Fil-A's position. If their food sucked, they'd be gone.

I'm like Phish, I could care less about the owner. If I like it and I want it, I buy it. Levi Strauss is anti gun and I am very pro 2A. I only wear levis though. Everything doesn't have to be a "cause" to fight for.

So Dave, you like Chick-fil-A but don't eat there because the owner doesn't agree with homosexuality?

I don't boycott many things, but Chik-Fil-A is one of them and it dates back to before this recent stuff with Palin.  I don't think that my not eating their food is going to hurt their business horribly or anything like that, but I feel better about myself.  It's not even a boycott, really, when I just choose the food right next to them.  It's a easy thing to skip and I probably wouldn't be as adamant if it were a bigger sacrifice.  When I'm in the mall, though, I have 10 choices right next to each other.

Actually, I have downloaded firefox on 7 devices. 2 desktops, 2 laptops, 2 tablets, and my new Moto G. Most people have multiple devices. And as much as I like Chick-fil-A. I've probably downloaded firefox more in the last 12 months than eaten at Chick-fil-A. Especially, if you take into account windows reinstalls and android rooting and romming.

I think Chick-fil-a sucks, regardless of their political and social stances.  The food isn't that good and they are closed on Sunday.  You can get a better chicken sandwich at Wendy's.

Not according to the chicken eating public, lol.

If Eich were the CEO of a gun manufacturer or country music label or chicken & waffle house, he'd almost certainly still have his job today.  Unfortunately for him, he was the CEO of a Silicon Valley-based Internet browser company, so his customer base (and contributing coders!) are tech-savvy and largely liberal.  He might as well have been working in the fashion industry.

Again, target audience.  When you are a company based primarily in the South, thumping the Bible gets you brownie points.  When you are a company that lives on open-source coding, thumping the Bible is digging your own grave.

KFC also has over 4500 outlets in China, over 1200 outlets in Japan, over 700 outlets in the UK, over 600 in Australia, etc.  To my knowledge, Chick-Fil-A has zero outlets outside of the U.S.

Chick-Fil-A is only beating KFC if you limit your comparison to the United States.  Outside of the U.S., KFC is dominating (you can't get any more dominating than comparing millions to zero).

Was Chick-Fil-A "kicking KFC's ass" when they were both primarily regional franchises?

Economics don't scale the way you think.

No, if he would have stood his ground against these clowns then he still would have his job. Not to mention it's only been like 8 years since he make his petty donation. Some poor fools look to dig up anything to complain about.

Chick-fil-A is a younger and smaller company only in the US. Therefore, what they do internationally is irrelevant. They are whipping KFC's ass because they have better service and food quality. The food also tastes a hell of a lot better. They have simply built a better mouse trap. Silly homosexual politics have noting to do with it.


If you say so Mr. Krugman. I guess really the only thing that matters economically is that Chick-fil-A is #1 in the US chicken market over anyone else.

So, the money a company makes in the USA matters, but the money they make internationally doesn't? If you were a shopkeeper, and I wanted to buy something in your shop, and I had two $100 bills in my wallet, one that I earned in the USA and one that I earned overseas, would the $100 bill I made overseas be worth any less to you than the $100 bill I made in the USA?

For the record, I eat at both KFC and Chik-Fil-A these days, with my brand determination factor solely being which one is closest to me when I experience the craving for chicken.

If he would have stood his ground, he would have been fired.

Do you really think his "resignation" (from a company he co-founded) was voluntary?  He was forced out.

And by younger, you mean that while "Kentucky Fried Chicken" has existed for 62 years and has tens of thousands of outlets around the world, "Chick-Fil-A" has existed for only 47 years and is still primarily a regional chain.

I wonder if you also believe that since Ford beat Toyota in auto sales in the U.S. last year, Toyota is getting their "ass whipped."

You are playing with numbers here. You took the date of the first Chick-fil-A and the date of the first KFC franchise. KFC has been around 84 years actually.

I think if we are going to talk about expansions and size of distribution, it is important to point out the significant difference that Chick-fil-A is a privately owned company while KFC is a subsidiary of a large publicly traded corporation (which was spun off from an even larger publicly traded corporation).

And you're also playing with numbers; you're counting the first restaurant Harland Sanders ever opened in 1930 (well before he even started selling fried chicken, much less the pressure-fried chicken KFC is known for) as the "first KFC."

I specifically compared the first "Kentucky Fried Chicken" restaurant to the first "Chick-Fil-A" restaurant, because both of them had predecessors.  But if you want to start at the first restaurant, then it's really 84 years (Harland Sanders' first restaurant in 1930) to 68 years (S. Truett Cathy's first restaurant in 1946).

But whether you want to compare a 62-year-old brand to a 47-year-old brand, or an 84-year history to a 68-year history, the idea that youth is a significant factor in the difference between KFC and Chick-Fil-A is fairly absurd.  It's like saying that the reason McDonald's is bigger than Burger King is because McDonald's has been around longer.

And relatedly, if Chick-Fil-A were not privately owned, their stockholders would likely take a dim view of the CEO inserting himself into social discussions outside the realm of the business (to say nothing of shutting down all restaurants one day a week because Jesus).  You can't have it both ways.

If I owned a small pizza restaurant across the street from a Pizza Hut, Dominos, and Papa Johns. Do I care how much money they make in England or Poland? Or am I concerned with the market that I'm involved it? Until Chick-fil-A enters other markets it doesn't matter. They are winning the fight that they are in, the US market.

And your point is? That a smaller, younger, and only regional chain is beating the largest chain in the world in their home country. I think that speaks volumes. Chick-fil-A has a very outspoken anti gay owner who thinks that being gay is abnormal. I agree with him, it's abnormal. Regardless of all of that, Chick-fil-a is still #1 in the country. It's funny how you will argue and defend everything liberal, but you can't argue against real facts. So much for the homosexual agenda and propaganda.

They may be slightly ahead of KFC, but I don't believe Chick-fil-A is competing with KFC.  They predominantly serve sandwiches, so their competition is likely more in line with Wendy's, BK, and McD's.  The only reason they are ahead of KFC is because KFC fell drastically from the previous year, not because Chick-fil-A is so much better.

According to this list, Chick-fil-A is 9th among fast-food chains (based on 2012 numbers).

http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/qsr50-2013-top-50-chart

Personally, I bet they'd be higher on that list if not for their radical anti-gay stance.

Completely false. Chick-fil-A was ahead of KFC for the past two years. They widened the gap last year.

Understand.  As I stated, I'm talking about 2011 to 2012, since those are the only numbers I could find.  I cant seem to find numbers for 2013.  It would appear that, as recently as 2011, KFC was still ahead of Chick-fil-A, before their sharp and sudden decline.

^^^ I don't know about a full list but the 2013 number between the two are all over the web.

2012 : CFA $4.62B - KFC $4.46B
2013 : CFA $5.05B - KFC $4.22B

If you call almost $1billion in sales with only around 1/3 retail locations while being open only 6 days a week, slightly ahead. Ummmm, ok. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chick-fil-a-stole-kfc-s-chicken-crown-with-a-fraction-of-the-stores-151835949.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chick-fil-a-stole-kfc-s-chicken-crown-with-a-fraction-of-the-stores-151835949.html)

Chicken is chicken. Boneless or bone in. On a sandwich or out of a bucket. An article from your reference of choice that lists Chick-fil-A as direct competition with KFC. http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/qsr50-2013-chicken-segment-breakdown  (http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/qsr50-2013-chicken-segment-breakdown). So it seem that you are wrong on that point.

I doubt that their perfectly acceptable opinion of abnormal behavior has anything to do with their place on the list. According to these posts, their food isn't any good.
Are you saying that gay people and their supporters would eat there if not for their anti-gay stance. Even in spite of their bad food. That's funny stuff, lol.

None of this stuff has anything to do with it. However, just think of how high sales would be if they were open on Sundays. That would affect their place on the list much more than any of these silly homo politics and agendas.

So then, if Uncle Tony's New York Pizzeria is making more money than the Pizza Hut directly across the street, it is fair to say that Uncle Tony's is kicking Pizza Hut's ass?

And yet somehow, I don't think KFC will be returning all the revenue that comes from other countries.

Is money earned in other countries less important than money earned in the USA?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't McDonald's sell chicken?  In sandwiches and by the box?  I wonder what number they are...

Pretty funny that you chide me for "arguing against real facts" while you try to insist that international stores don't count.

You have seen a few people on this forum chime in and say "I don't eat there because of their anti-gay stance" - that's lost sales no matter how you look at it.  That's an $8 lunch one or two times per week from  millions of people, despite your personal opinion.  I'm sure, given the choice, they'd rather have that money than not.

You can muddy the waters with your "closed on Sunday" argument and your business rankings (my "source of choice" was the nothing more than the first on a Google search, BTW), but at the end of the day lost sales is lost sales.

Furthermore, I can't begin to tell you how ridiculous you sound when you say things like "abnormal behavior."  Homophobia at its finest.

I don't know why this has turned into a Chik-Fil-A vs. KFC argument.  Who cares?

Anyway, I don't consider them competitors.  I think of Chik-Fil-A more like Wendy's ....some place I'd go get a chicken sandwich -- not a bucket of chicken.

I would prefer Chik-Fil-A over KFC any day of the week.  I just never eat there, and would otherwise.

Yes, Uncle Tony's would be kicking their ass in the market they are competing in. They can't compete in a country if they don't exist in that country.

Is money earned in other countries less important than money earned in the USA?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't McDonald's sell chicken?  In sandwiches and by the box?  I wonder what number they are...[/quote] That's just a plain silly argument. Everyone knows that McDonald's is a hamburger joint, even small children.

I didn't say international sales didn't count. They just don't count as far as Chick-fil-A is concerned. They don't do international business, they aren't in that game whatsoever. Why would they care? They are the best where they exist.

Here is the thing, These two specialize in chicken regardless of how it is served. That is why these two get paired together. You can't get burgers at either one. The McDonalds & Wendy's comparison is with chains that do sandwiches but were built off of their burger business. In reality, they are all competing with each other.

I'm sure they lose business to PETA and people who think that they treat chickens badly. Every business loses business for some reason. Still, at the end of the day, they are #1 in the United States.

They are winning being open only 6 days a week and KFC is open 7 days a week. That's not muddy waters. That's having a superior product and services.

If you would like to explain how it is "normal" behavior to be homosexual, I'm all ears.

So when it comes to total revenue, Chick-Fil-A isn't beating KFC at all; they are getting stomped.  But if you ignore several thousand KFC outlets, then sure, I guess Chick-Fil-A wins!

Didn't I say this at the beginning?  Chick-Fil-A is a primarily regional chain.  And yes, in their region (which is a subsection of the U.S.), they do great against KFC.  But their business model (with a heavy emphasis on pandering to Christian conservatives) doesn't play well outside of the South.

So if they want to be the most successful chicken restaurant in the South (and make more money in the South in 6 days than KFC does in the entire U.S. in 7), they're doing a great job.  I guess KFC will just have to settle for being the most successful chicken restaurant on the planet (the whole planet, not just one subsection).

In that case, why would Chick-Fil-A have expanded out of Atlanta in the first place?  Shouldn't they have been satisfied with being the best where they exist?

Your logic runs counter to the entire idea of a chain restaurant.

I think that this is the most true.

I am somewhat ignorant on this subject, but does Chik-Fil-A even sell "bucket" chicken? 

I know that KFC has sandwiches, but I never get one there, so I don't know.  If I'm looking for a chicken sandwich, I go elsewhere, which is kinda weird, not that I think about it.

I bet someone like you in 1950 once said African Americans were "abnormal"...

The definition of "normal" changes over time.  Clearly your definition is stuck in the 70's or 80's.

^ Hey, I didn't say that!

It's right there for the world to see Dave.

They do not.  They sell chicken sandwiches, chicken salads/wraps, and chicken nuggets/strips.

Their menu is basically McDonald's, but without all the non-chicken items.

^^^ They also have chicken salad which is different.

Basically, no bone in products. The name of the company is a play on the word filet.

As the African Americans black people say. "Someone like me, what the hell's that supposed to mean?" LOL

Well then why don't you tell me what "your" current definition of normal is and how it applies to homosexuality and we'll go from there.

McDonald's sells chicken salad (http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/product_nutrition.salads.88.Premium-Southwest-Salad-with-Grilled-Chicken.html).

how about we go with every single vertebrate species exhibits a homosexual behavior across a percentage of the population

i would say it's normal for a certain percentage of people to be homosexual

That is A salad with chicken, not ckicken salad. Maybe it isn't popular in CA so you aren't familair with the difference?

In this part of the world chicken salad is like a spread for sandwiches.

I was talking to that "other guy", but I guess you'll do!

"normal" is defined as...

    dictionary.reference.com
        "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural."
        "approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment." b. free from any mental disorder; sane.
    thefreedictionary.com
        "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical"
        "Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies."
        the usual, average, or typical state, degree, form
    websters-onlinline-dictionary.org
        "Conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal"
        "Being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal

For your convenience, the universally accepted definitions of normal are listed above from 3 sources. Homosexuality does not fit in the definition of normal because it is statistically practiced by less than 5% of the population. So, by definition, homosexuality is not normal.

So you say that since a small percentage of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior that it is normal. I would counter the same point that I made above. It is a small percentage of the animal kingdom that has this behavior and a small percentage does not fit the definition of normal. Actually, a small percentage is within is the definition of abnormal.  And since when did we equate what is normal in the animal kingdom is normal for humans?

If you are going to apply that standard, then we should also consider all of the following normal for human beings.

eating placentas.
eating other humans alive.
eating your own young.
regurgitating food to feed to your young.
eating your own shit.
smelling other human's asses.
and so on, and so on........

All of these things are normal in the animal kingdom and happen at a higher percentage than homosexual behavior does. Does that make them "NORMAL" for humans to do? Ummm, NO

LOL, as in a chicken salad sandwich, duh. Phish, I think these guys are confused about chicken in general, ha.

It is abnormal that anyone would consider that argument as being logical.

that would be abnormal yes

Please cite your sources.

So, you get to pick and choose which animal kingdom behaviors are normal for humans to partake in? It's either, animal behaviors are normal behaviors for humans or they aren't. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick a side and live with it. Otherwise you have no credibility.

While I'm not on Pondwater's side, he is right in that you can't pick and choose which attributes you want to support your side.

Keep it clean.

Please keep / stop / refrain from all forms of personal attacks.

Additionally, in the event you're referring a post to a mod for assistance, please do not add "fuel to the fire" (IE - let us handle it, please).

Carry on...nicely.  Or it gets locked down.  This one is starting to run it's course.

I'm not sure what "side" you think that I'm on. However, thanks for using logic and reason instead of emotion and politics.

Soooo .. lets stop playing the hyperbole game. 

When it comes to the vertebrates, homosexuality is exhibited in all of the above. That's my standard.  and your number of 5% is purely a number you pulled out of your ass. All reports i've seen estimate the percentage at a solid 10%.

No it is normal for a minority of humans, as well as other animal species, to demonstrate homosexual tendencies.

You seem to be of the misguided opinion that for any behavior to be considered normal, it has to either be done by the majority of a species or espoused by the church.

Bingo!

Yes, a small percentage of the animal kingdom exhibits homosexual behavior. And Yes a small percentage of humans exhibit homosexual behavior. Just because they both exhibit the behavior, DOESN'T make it normal.

A small percentage of people get cancer. Animals get cancer. Are cancer cells normal cells?

A small percentage of people are pedophiles. Are pedophiles normal?

What about incest? A small percentage of people do it. I'm sure that we can find plenty of examples in nature. Does that make it normal for humans?

Your logic is flawed by your emotions and bias.

I have a question:

Are Jews abnormal?

Ethnic Jews are 0.19% of the world population.
Followers of Judaism are also ~0.2% of the world population.

This thinly-veiled appeal to majority is just that: thinly-veiled.

I agree that it is normal for humans as a group to have abnormalities and anomalies in regards to human behavior. That doesn't mean that the particular behavior is normal. It just means that there are always going to be low percentage abnormal behavior within said group. 

Start a thread and discuss it.

yes it does, it makes it biologically normal in fact

you're making the false insinuation that normal = majority.

Spider pointed out a brilliant counter-example, and you dismissed it as "off-topic".

Way to go.

Methinks the subtle nuances of the English language doth escape the not-so-subtle pond dweller...

No, you're making the false insinuation that normal = small percentage anomalies. 

And as you liberals have pointed out in the past. You guys can make fun of religion because it's a stupid belief. However, homosexuality is a trait so it's off limits. So therefore it is an apples to oranges comparison. According to your own past posts, beliefs and human traits are two different things. Stop changing the subject or start your own religious belief thread.

I posted the literal definitions of the word for you in a previous post. The definitions of words in the English language don't change and revolve around your political or social agendas or homosexual activities. Words have meanings and they are listed in this thread for a reason.

(http://media.tumblr.com/63c6fb09e9c751cc864e79da2dfe57c4/tumblr_inline_mi33458irI1qz4rgp.gif)

I'm glad to see that we both agree that homosexuality is a genetic trait you are born with, and not a personal decision*.  That is specifically why I cited Jews, which are both an ethnicity (genetic trait) and a religion (voluntary belief).  So aren't ethnic Jews abnormal?

Furthermore, since you just said that homosexuality is a trait, and the expression of that trait has been determined as Constitutionally-protected by the Supreme Court, on what basis do you justify discrimination against homosexual marriage?  The entire framework of conservative objection to homosexuality rests upon the idea that homosexuality is an immoral choice, not a genetic trait.

Isn't discriminating against someone for genetic traits that are out of their control... bigotry?  How is that any different than banning interracial marriage?

More twists and turns from spiderweb. If you notice the first sentence in my post, "And as you liberals have pointed out in the past." You will then understand that I was pointing out your well known views.  Don't try and twist my words, it won't work.

And by the way, I could care less about homo marriage, doesn't matter to me one way or another. This conversation was about homosexuality being abnormal behavior. If they want to join the 50% divorce rate club, have at it.

You're the one touting the abnormality of homosexuality, not me, so my liberal views on the "cause of homosexuality" are irrelevant; I'm not the one claiming that they are abnormal.

Based on your last post, it seems that you believe that homosexuality is a choice; fine.  Judaism is also a choice.  Are (religious) Jews abnormal?

Wrong again, I said that homosexual behavior is abnormal, no more, no less. Spin it anyway you want. At the end of the day, Chick-fil-A is still #1 in the U.S. and homosexual behavior is still abnormal by English and Biological definition. You can't change that no matter what you do.

Yes, you have proven that homosexual behavior is almost as abnormal as Judaism.

The proverbial other shoe drops:

OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox)

As you may recall, dating site OKCupid very publicly denounced Brendan Eich, redirecting visitors using Firefox to an alternate page condemning Eich and encouraging users to change browsers.  Turns out that in 2004, OKCupid's CEO Sam Yagan donated $500 to the campaign of Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah):

"During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.

He's also voted for numerous anti-choice measures, earning a 0 percent rating from NARAL Pro Choice America. Among other measures, Cannon voted for laws prohibiting government from denying funds to medical facilities that withhold abortion information, stopping minors from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, and banning family planning funding in US aid abroad. Cannon also earned a 7 percent rating from the ACLU for his poor civil rights voting record: He voted to amend FISA to allow warrant-less electronic surveillance, to allow NSA intelligence gathering without civil oversight, and to reauthorize the PATRIOT act."

So now Yagan will be hoist by his own petard, right?  No, just like I predicted, all you need is a Come to Jesus moment (http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/04/08/okcupid-ceo-once-donated-to-anti-gay-politician/):

"A decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today.  However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right."

Like I said, all Eich had to do was recant his donation and he would have been permitted to continue along as CEO without a hiccup.  He chose to fall on his sword.

I have no issue with this. He apologized and stated that he is now on the right side of the situation. That's all the Mozilla CEO had to do. If he'd done that he'd still have a job. No one would be talking about it.