Why do Mozilla Foundation and Ford Foundation fund antifa?

>Seriously though fuck these pigs for posting these pictures. Basically just there to get these people fired from their jobs, because the cops know they won't be able to charge any of them with anything.
Isn't that exactly what leftists do when the tables are turned, though?

>"I don't hate gays"
>"b-b-but you shouldn't have the same rights as me if you like it up the ass"

You shouldnt, you aids ridden pedophile

Publicly outing and firing people is how progressives stop right wing nutcases like you, bigot.

>It has nothing to do with subverting your religion, I swear, no one is trying to violate the sanctity of marriage
>NO I WON'T ACCEPT CIVIL UNIONS. EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGALLY EXACTLY THE SAME AS MARRIAGE, IT'S NOT ENOUGH. I NEED TO GET MARRIED IN A CHURCH AND FORCE A PRIEST TO DO IT EVEN IF IT'S AGAINST HIS RELIGION.

So, as demonstrated, you hate gays.

I'm a socialist and I personally condemn getting anyone getting fired from their jobs or getting beat up just because they spew hate speech. For more, see:

jacobinmag.com/2017/02/garton-ash-free-speech-milo-yiannopoulos

But also, there's a clear difference between a bunch of what I would call liberals getting someone fired, and the police advocating for people to do it. The power dynamics are much different.

>Ford Foundation
Hahahahahahahhahaha

From funding German nationalism to funding ANTIFA in less than a century.

But that's the thing; equal rights is a false analogy because gays don't actually love each other. They just want to poz each other and have bareback funtime from someone on Craigslist. Gay acceptance is just used as a gateway into pedophilia.

Marriage isn't a right. If it were, single people would be entitled to get married by themselves. You refuse to use civil unions, too, proving it's not about rights.

Separation of state and church, you nigger. If marriage were a church thing that didn't change your legal status or affect your taxation, I would agree with you. The church could be free to refuse to marry gay couples as much as they like and I wouldn't give a fuck. But as long as marriage constitutes a legal entity, then there should be equal rights to all citizens.

Also, I don't care about priests and churches, I'm talking about judges and other government employees that are refusing to do their service.

>I'm a socialist and I personally condemn getting anyone getting fired from their jobs or getting beat up just because they spew hate speech.
That doesn't matter. The political group you associate operates like that on a regular basis. It's like if you were to say "I'm a nazi and I personally condemn rounding up minorities and putting them into camps." Don't you see how ridiculous that statement is?

You are choosing to associate yourself with an ideology that operates with thuggish and oppressive tactics. Leftists today operate almost exactly like fascists did back in the 30's, the only difference was that social media didn't exist back then. If it did, you can bet your socks they would have used the same shaming and intimidation tactics.

I oppose the concept of marriage entirely, and I agree that there shouldn't be a legal difference at all. See However, as long as it is, rights should be equal.

>gays don't actually love each other.
Donald Trump didn't actually love his three wives either.

Yeah but a lot of people dont support it because of relgion and god said gays cant get married

If you oppose the concept of marriage entirely, then you're opposed to gay marriage.

no church is forced to perform gay marriage, wtf are you taking about?

I wouldn't have a problem with that if it weren't for the fact that marriage is considered a legal entity and can, in many states, affect your taxes etc. If it was merely a religious practice, then you could refuse to marry niggers or gays or cripples or people named John and I wouldn't give a fuck.

I'm opposed to marriage as a legal concept, people should be free to make whatever commitments to each other in any way they want, just keep the state out of it.

Gays dont deserve tax cuts because they dont reproduce and create future tax payers like normal families do

>Separation of state and church,
I agree
>you nigger
Takes one to know one.
>If marriage were a church thing that didn't change your legal status or affect your taxation, I would agree with you.
Good to know you agree with me then, because that's exactly what marriage is. Getting married in a church has absolutely no impact on your legal status. It's purely a religious ceremony. The real legal magic happens after you file marriage documents with a judge.

A civil union is legally identical to what you do after you get married. But because it's a different word, it's not good enough.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Niggers produce future welfare queens. Gays are infinitely better than that. Also, tax is theft anyway. If you didn't need to hire government officials to run around and marry people and issue certificates, you could cut the cost of that entirely and collect less taxes.

mozilla would rather pretend to be google via social activism than work on firefox

can have surrogate kids or adopt. a straight couple can get married and not have kids but still get tax benefits.

>Getting married in a church has absolutely no impact on your legal status.
That's demonstratively wrong.

>The real legal magic happens after you file marriage documents with a judge.
We are talking about state rights to marry though.

>A civil union is legally identical to what you do after you get married. But because it's a different word, it's not good enough.
It's obviously not "just a different word", because why would you protest it then?

oh in shit holes? nvm then

>A civil union is legally identical to what you do after you get married. But because it's a different word, it's not good enough.

That's literally how segregation was defended.

>a straight couple can get married and not have kids but still get tax benefits.
Or have fifteen kids on welfare.

Except Nazism is literally defined as advocating for eugenics. You can't deny the definition of your ideology. But there is nothing in the definition of socialism saying you want people to get fired from their jobs for saying shit. You can't just change the definition of an ideology just because a significant portion of people in that ideology advocate for it. These are two seperate things.

>Leftists today operate almost exactly like fascists did back in the 30's,

Again you're using words without actually knowing what they mean, stop repeating shit you heard and try researching it yourself. Fascism is defined as opposition to the left. Maybe you only get your politics from youtube, here's a nice meme video to help you out

youtube.com/watch?v=vxv5q6JGNhw

70% of what I do as a socialist is just canvas for medicare for all on Saturdays. And I say this not to paint every socialist the same as me, but to communicate with you as a person, because I have a feeling you've never actually spoken to a socialist IRL. If you live in the U.S., come to a Democratic Socialists of America meeting, we'd be happy to have you.

They should remove benefits from childless straight couples. The rules are outdated since they were written before modern birth control.

Different word and err, different legal entity. The separation of the church and state makes it important for literally every right to be available to literally everyone. For example, you have the legal right to do things which you're physically incapable of doing (like becoming pregnant as a man).

>a straight couple can get married and not have kids but still get tax benefits.
I don't think they should. One should only be eligible for tax breaks if one is actively promoting the growth and wellbeing of the country (by producing future tax payers)

Could this be extended to those who adopt, sure. Should homosexuals be permitted to adopt? That's a different story, the data on how it affects children isn't conclusive yet. If having gay parents increases the likelyhood of the children being gay later in life, then it should be forbidden on the basis that it is cutting down on the number of potential tax payers. (in the long run this trend would have a deleterious effect on the tax paying base)

>Shit hole
Denmark is the first nation leftists always point to when they claim socialism works. You couldn't move the goalposts harder if you tried.

Marriage was a union between a man and a woman, instituted by religion.
It then became a union between a man, a woman and the state, which could at any time, give all the man's shit to the woman and jail him arbitrary.
Gays then demanded that "right", lol.

It's all about destroying our culture. Fuck you, I hope you die in 5 different fires.

>(by producing future tax payers)
Most children being born are not future tax payers, they are future welfare recipients.

What's wrong with segregation? All data shows that both groups were better off under pretty much every metric before it was eliminated. Especially black families and black fatherhood and black entrepreneurship.

This

Sodomy Marriage is not a human right, faggot

>blacks had it better during segregation
You went in too hard, this is too obvious. Be more subtle next time.

Those situations are exact opposites. Your position is basically segregation: keep gays with each other and give them a label that sounds nice. His civil union approach is about keeping legal rules the same, which is like desegregation.

Believe it or not, what you think is good for the country (future tax payers) is not what everyone else thinks is good for the country.

Christians invented marriage amirite xDDD

>Again you're using words without actually knowing what they mean, stop repeating shit you heard and try researching it yourself. Fascism is defined as opposition to the left.
You seem to be the brainlet here, just because you oppose something doesn't mean you can't use the same tactics as they do.

Nobody said anything about human rights. We're talking about state issued rights here.

>It then became a union between a man, a woman and the state
As long as the state is involved, there should be equal rights. But ideally marriage as a legal concept should be abolished entirely, or at least just redefined as civil unions every last one of them.

His premise is that "it's just a word", which is obviously untrue seeing how everyone keeps chanting "'marriage' is defined by muh holy book as between man and woman". I would support redefining all legal marriages as civil unions.

Also, in some states, a civil union does demonstratively NOT provide the same legal rights as a marriage.

back to pol

Source?