You aren't being a pedant. You are making an invalid argument by restating what I said with semantics that make it appear to be a different statement.

State-sponsored marriage is a collection of rights. It is nothing more than that. A married person has special inheritance rights, special rights of access, and special rights to making medical and financial decisions when their partner is incompetent, all with respect to their partner. At present, in some jurisdictions man are allowed to have such rights with respect to one woman, and women are allowed to have such rights with respect to one man. So if you represent the problem using these semantics, then it's clear that in these jurisdictions, men are being denied rights that women have, and women are being denied rights that men have. In this view, Brendan is denying all women the right he has.

Or you could use the semantics I started with, which is that some people have these rights with respect to their spouse, and other people do not, and Brendan took successful action to ensure that he had those rights, and people of whom he disapproves did not.

I think this semantics makes the most sense; if you disagree, you could make an argument for why your semantics is better for expressing the problem, but you didn't—you just proposed it, as if it somehow invalidated the conclusion I'd drawn using different valid semantics.

The right to inherit property from a man to whom you are married, make medical decisions for them when they can't, and visit them at their bedside when they are dying, is not a right that is denied to all. It is a right that is denied only to men. The right to inherit property from a woman to whom you are married, etc., is not a right denied to all. It is a right denied only to women.

You could assert that I am using semantics to get around your argument, but your argument is a semantic argument, so I'm just rephrasing it in a way that illustrates that it is invalid.

Actually Ender's Game, particularly the short story, was pretty well written. Of course, it was written to drag you into the author's viewpoint about how to think, which is a pretty weird viewpoint, but I'd criticize the viewpoint before I'd criticize the writing. The story had quite an affect on my thinking when I was in my twenties.

As far as the biblical verse goes, it seems irrelevant. The reason for laws on molestation and statutory rape is that we've decided as a society that people below a certain age aren't realistically able to give consent. In order to protect their rights, we make it illegal to have sex with them. This is a case of conflicting rights: the child molester wants to fuck the child, and the child has a right not to be fucked. So while it's hard to see how anybody could disagree about the interpretation of the bible verse you've paraphrased, if you paraphrased it accurately, it has no bearing on whether we should be tolerant of NAMBLA.

In fact, I think we should be tolerant of people who want to fuck children, but not to the extent of letting them do so. Having desires that can only be satisfied by taking away the rights of others is not a happy state of mind. A compassionate person would try to help the person who has that state of mind. At the same time, they would try to prevent that person from acting on that state of mind. Preferably in a pleasant custodial setting.

You could make the same argument for gay people, but the issue of consent isn't present if both are old enough to give consent. If you feel that their state of mind is still wrong, you are free to tell them so, and to try to help them. And they are free to tell you to fuck off, and to get a restraining order if you don't.

And by the way, if someone is openly a member of NAMBLA, chances are they're going to have trouble getting hired to clean toilets, much less be CEO of Mozilla.

They're fighting for the right to fuck children, which is a right denied to all, not just some, and not on the basis of race, religion or sexual preference.

Being able to inherit your partner's estate, and being able to make medical decisions for your partner when they are incapacitated, and being able to visit them when they are in the hospital and unconscious, are all basic human rights. Rights which used to be routinely denied gay couples, and still are in many states.

They aren't leading the company, and they aren't out. Leader's intolerance is a lot more significant than individual contributors' intolerance.

Marriage as an instrument of state is simply a package of rights that you get when you marry. It's nothing more than that. So in fact, when you take away the religious aspect, it makes opposition of those rights even more blatantly reprehensible: you are reserving for yourself rights that you do not want others to have, because of your disapproval of those others, and you can't even hide behind the church the way people who claim it's about religion are able to.

So, kudos for being honest, but that's all you get. Not supporting your desire to retain rights for yourself that you would withhold from others is not intolerance.

No, it actually has to be what we mean when we say "intolerance," which is to say, it has to be actions taken to take away peoples' rights based on their beliefs or skin color or whatever. You don't have a right to impose your views on others, so when we act to stop you from doing so, that isn't what we mean by "intolerance."

No, I don't want that. But you can't always get what you want. I can be fired anytime for my views, and I think about that when I express them. And I express them anyway, because I'd rather speak truthfully and participate fully in democracy, which I consider important, than take the coward's way out and stay silent out of fear for my job.

Eich didn't just voice his opinion. He tried to use government force to impose his opinion on others, by taking rights away from them that he holds dear for himself.

Yes, you're tired of people not tolerating your intolerance.

The weird thing about religious beliefs is that people feel that they are not being tolerated when they try to force those beliefs on others, and that somehow it's their right to force their beliefs on others. You are absolutely free to hate gay people. You are free to think women should all wear burkas. It's when you stone a woman in the street for not wearing a burka, or take a gay person's rights away, that you are being intolerant. And it's no surprise that people who disagree with you don't tolerate your behavior.

So the idea that the problem is that we don't "agree" with you is a complete red herring. It's true that we don't agree with you (those of us who don't). But what we are intolerant of is not your opinion, but your actions in forcing your opinion on us.

If someone said that in Alabama in 1957, it would speak directly to their character. I certainly would not hire them for a leadership position if they refused to even talk about why they said that. And that is precisely what Brendan did. I think it's fine to be open to people changing and growing, and when someone has had a change of heart we should honor and even reward that. But what if that person who said what they said in 1957 refused to talk about it? Did not seem to exhibit any remorse? Should we just give them a pass, because the times were what they were? What about the people in 1957 who said "I don't give a damn what people think, every citizen deserves the right to vote?" Treat them both the same?

Being physically restrained from entering the hospital room where your loved one and partner of thirty years is dying, because you and they are the same sex, is WAY THE FUCK WORSE than losing a cushy job because you exercised your right to advocate for a law that would prevent same-sex partners from having the same rights that opposite-sex married partners have. I can barely begin to imagine how bad that would be, and I don't have to find out, because I am straight, and was able to marry my partner over a decade ago.

Er, no. You are free to advocate whatever you think is best for your municipality, state, country, and world, and people are free to disagree with you. And in the process, hopefully we arrive at a place that's generally beneficial. Your freedom is a freedom from government interference. This freedom is crucial. We've seen the government act to chill free speech in the past, and it's very dangerous. You should look into the Alien and Sedition act, for instance. The idea is that if you disagree with the government's decision to go to war, you can be prosecuted. This doesn't work, because it prevents debate, and prevents a plurality of views. It's better for the government to let you say what you want.

What is not the case, however, is that if you say something reprehensible in public, there need not be any consequences for doing so. The only consequence you are free from is prosecution. You can be shunned by people who despise what you stand for. You can be asked to step down from a leadership position. This is one of the strongest powers that the people, as opposed to the government, have. It's been used to unseat despots in the past.

Which bible verse says (or doesn't say) you're not supposed to fuck children? AFAIK that's something our society decided was important—that is, it's not a religious dictate codified as law, but an ethical judgment codified as law.