Microsoft Abandons Gay Rights Bill 2304
andrewagill writes "Microsoft has withdrawn support from a bill that would "protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination" of the other usual suspects. Odd, given their previous accolades from the GLBT community, and their prior public support for the bill."
Bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Followed by
An Apple a day keeps the bigot away?As much as I am for civil rights and gay marriage, this is inflammatory. Just because Microsoft changed their stance from pro to neutral (not against), this makes them bigoted? I don't buy that. I don't buy that at all.
This is the same kind of black and white reasoning that George W. Bush uses. "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Just because someone wants to back away from the battle, doesn't mean all of a sudden that they're on the side of the religious right.
I know it's in-fashion to bash Microsoft on this site, but the fellow who wrote this article takes any sort of GBLA equality achievements with a grain of salt. Kind of like giving a donation to a charity the first time around, and being called stingy for not doing so every time.
Sure, it's disappointing that they backed off. Sure, I hope they change their mind, and I hope plenty of people call them. But to call them bigoted for turning neutral (and not against) is simply going too far.
Entirely Predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
That Microsoft did this actually this was fairly predictable, even though I too am a strong advocate of gay rights.
Regardless of TFA says, what I think happened is that there is a some major customer of Microsoft software is strongly anti-gay rights (like the Bush run federal government or a large corporation or a major customer who allies itself with the religious right extremists mentioned in TFA) told Microsoft that they wouldn't purchase X 10s of thousands of copies of Office if Microsoft undermined their anti-gay political policies / laws.
Microsoft wants to be known as socially responsible, but faced with a reduction of revenue, their greed took precedent and they became non-political on this issue. Of course they can't publicly admit this backroom concession.
Surely no one here would be surprised that Microsoft went for the money before social responsibility. Heck most companies would do the same thing if enough money was at stake.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
Oh man (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I'll listen to the zealots ticking off the reasons "M$ is teh suxx0rz" and including "they hate fagz" as well, like most of they care.
I have to wonder why this is on the Slashdot front page, and why it's not followed by a list of companies like IBM, Novell, Sun and Red Hat and what their attitude is towards gays and lesbians.
But wait, actually I don't.
Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's USA (Score:1, Insightful)
okay, i'll bite... (Score:5, Insightful)
what the hell does a software company have to do with promoting gay rights? i don't remember any questions to that effect the last time i installed windows...
*hands up in the air..*
*rolls eyes..*
*walks away...*
Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no excuse for discrimination against gays. Microsoft of all companies should know that.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know the guy. So I can't say how bad he is. But you certainly sound very negative.
There is no national gay agenda. I'm sure we could find gay people on both sides of the issue. Are we so desperate to split up our society into little small pieces to fight one another? Does it have to be the bible-crusaders against human rights for gays? I would imagine there are a lot of bible-thumpers who would never hurt another human being, gay or not. And until told otherwise, I'd assume this pastor is one of them. Likewise, I imagine there are a lot of gay people who don't want special rights, they just want to be treated like everyone else.
Is there room for common sense anymore?
What is the problem here? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the answer to most discrimination issues *is* to be totally neutral (not to discrimination, but to whatever basis people are using to dicriminate). Black? White? Latino? Gay? Lesbian? Bi? I don't care...how well can you program? What experience do you have unit testing? Are you familiar with functional programming methods?
I'm usually against MS, but on this, I agree...they shouldn't have a position on issues like this; these issues are personal and irrelevant to the business. Making it out like they're suddenly a "bad guy" because of THIS, of all things, is kind of absurd.
Re:okay, i'll bite... (Score:5, Insightful)
and hint hint... treating your people BETTER usually results in BETTER software with BETTER profits...
This passes for journalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone actually confirm that MS pulled support of this?
Re:How are gays discriminated against at work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you have a picture of your partner on your desk. You might be told that personal pictures are "inappropriate"... even though others have pictures of their wives or husbands on their desks. You might be passed over for promotion, get your hours cut, or fired for "poor performance" or "poor attitude."
Sure, you can be gay at work without anyone knowing... if you never talk about your personal life... and you laugh along with everyone else when someone makes a "faggot" joke... and you express the same level of admiration for this week's actress or calendar model of choice... and you never refer to your partner in any way that sounds like you aren't "just friends"...
Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US (Score:0, Insightful)
I remember being 12 calling things gay. Bush has nothing to do with it.
Re:Huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Allow me to explain. We measure its relevance using a unit known to some as the US Dollar, to others as the "greenback". Legislation in this country needs to be lobbied for. Politicians don't know shit, and don't have much of an incentive to learn about shit unless there is somebody breathing down their neck, using the carrot-and-stick approach to get them to pay attention to an issue. The people who do this, lobbyists, have to be paid by somebody. Since corporations have a lot of money and a common goal within the organization can be easily set, it's pretty straightforward to see how they might hire lobbyists and give them the tools (payola money) to work their trade.
Now you may think in an ideal democracy this isn't how things would work, but that's not the world we live in. Professional, trade, and random interest groups can certainly wield the same power by swinging some dollars around, and representing some bloc of citizens. But without some sort of organized, funded umbrella organization, it is difficult to get your opinion heard by politicians.
So, perhaps it's a little more clear now why Microsoft throwing their weight behind this cause might be relevant?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Serious Question Off Topic(at least a little) (Score:1, Insightful)
Gay unions, marriages, whatever you call it and whether you are for or against it.
Question: If gay marriages are allowed, would this also mean I should be able to marry my sister(no Kentukcy jokes), my brother, mom, dad or anyone else.
I hear Barney Franks speech about just wanting to be together and live normally, etc.
Could I not substitute my sister in his speech and make the same arguments?(We will assume one of us is sterile).
What about more than one wife or husband, maybe a combination of both?
I really am serious.
9876
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I know that's not the best example in the world, but I meant that to demonstrate the millions of ways this could turn into a lawyer-friendly fiasco in record time. If you extend insurance benefits to gay partners (despite their current lack of legal status), do you have to extend it to unmarried straight partners as well? Do gay couples have to file their taxes together, or can they keep the huge tax benefits of filing singly, and if the latter, isn't that discrimination against unmarried straight couples? Do religious groups have to hire gay people even if they are strongly against it? Accept gay volunteers to non-paid positions?
Honestly, either go with gay marriage (or civil unions or some other process of establishing a legal basis in a relationship) or forget these stupid halfway laws that can't possibly be fairly enforced.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US (Score:1, Insightful)
Something doesn't seem right (Score:2, Insightful)
The radical right activist reportedly told Microsoft it had better pull its support for the gays or anti-gay bigots would launch a nationwide boycott of Microsoft, and guess what - Microsoft caved. A single anti-gay jerk, and Microsoft chose to reverse over ten years of policy and bash gays.
Ok, is it just me or does that paragraph just not make sense. Microsoft has millions of customers, and I hardly thing one voice (no matter how loud or how Christian) threatening to boycott is going to make Microsoft do anything, let along change their political stance. I mean, nearly every Slashdotter has been boycotting Microsoft for years, and it hasn't made them do anything!
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
Sounds to me like gay and lesbian people (as represented by the movement, not the individual people) are not wanting to be treated like everyone else, they want to be special. They want political clout, they want marches, they want to throw their personal preferences into the living room of the other 80% of the population.
I say treat them the same - -that means NO special laws or consideration. Just like everybody else.
If you're talking marriage, then that's a different animal. Explain to me why 3 men and a cat can't get married but 2 men can? Marriage is either a social and evolutionary construct between each sex or it's just a club. I support equal rights as far as survivor's beneifts, insurance, etc, but not changing the definition of a 4-thousand+ year institution simply because some of my fellow americans are stupid and hurt gay people.
You can't leglislate away the way people think. You can only persuade them civilly. Like we are doing here. Free political speech and persuasion are pretty neat things.
Re:Quite honestly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why on earth is a company taking a neutral stance on politics a bad thing? You want to kick and scream if RIAA and MPAA start acting like government/law officials because it's detrimental to YOUR way of life, but when a company comes along that decides to pull it's pro/con statements back and let the government handle government work, you get zealot-like and swear off an entire Operating System.
If you want companies to start sticking their hands in everything the government does, then I'm afraid you are in for a rude awakening when you realise the full impact that Microsoft has had on the government descision torwards gay-rights; no impact at all.
Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong angle (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, a law that is totally unrelated to their industry
Considering the law in no small part had to do with discrimination in employment situations, I would imagine it is totally related to companies that...you know.....employ people.
It's about time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quite honestly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what? Foster kids are like any other kids. What they need is what any other kid needs, they just need more of some things if they are older because they have been raised by people who didn't want them or weren't fit to have them. What makes homosexuals any less fit to provide that? What makes homosexuals abnormal? Answer: only your bigotry.
Want some supporrting evidence? Straight people have kids that grow up to be gay. I'm not talking about abused children here either. But, basically your whole thought process is predicated upon the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuals, which is an inherently prejudiced concept. YOU ARE A BIGOT. YOU HAVE NO HIGH GROUND.
Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect it's because more people that call themselves "christian" agree with him than you think they do.
In my mind, just being a christian is endorsement of this guy and Fred Phelps and George W. Bush and all of the other fundamentalist cocksuckers out there that want to throw out the constitution and replace it with the bible.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously homosexuality doesn't figure into that at all, because all people involved are obviously just as capable of consenting as heterosexual partners.
Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson (Score:5, Insightful)
For your convenience, I am Jewish.
Other then that, a good lynchin of bastards who want to take away the rights of others because they are different (and pose no real threat to anyone else) wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
my dogs hump eachother all the time, isn't that natural?
and why is it, that because you want to see 2 girls make out that it becomes natural, and something you don't want to see (at the same time as boy on boy, childbirth?) is unnatural?
if girl + girl is good, guy + guy can be good too.
it might not be pretty, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Re:Slight little difference. (Score:1, Insightful)
Society. Homosexual behavior is detrimental to a properly functioning civilization. It's not hard to see if one is actually open minded enough to put away one's extreme hatred of Christianity (since this is really why a lot of people are pro-homosexuality) to accept the possibility that maybe homosexuality is not healthy for the people engaged in it and those around them.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe MS is really afraid of a religious-right boycott, especially when they're still the darlings of the other side of the Republican party (the economic right).
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
i play games, and windows is on my system, because there are no *real* alternatives.
sure there's winex, but you go play EQ2 on that.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
As to #1: I don't believe that sexual orientation is "simple" to hide. It is a large part of who we are, straight or gay, and comes out in our personalities. The whole point, which you obviously missed, is that A PERSON SHOULDN'T HAVE TO HIDE their sexual orientation.
As to #2: This has nothing to do with having sex at work. In most work places, religious ceremonies are not appropriate, and are not performed at the workplace. Yet we DO prohibit discrimination based on religion. So what's your point?
Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:5, Insightful)
The love that two men or two women feel for each other is no different than the love that a heterosexual couple experiences. There is no difference at all. None. That same warm indescribably wonderful feeling that a hetero remembers (I'm straight, so I know what it feels like) feeling on their wedding day is no different from what a gay man or a lesbian woman would feel on their wedding day. But our sick society is trying to deny that love can be experienced outside of a heterosexual relationship. It makes them so uncomfortable that they cover their ears and scream loudly, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening! I'm not listening"!
I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.
Re:How are gays discriminated against at work? (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is with gay rights - people don't want to have to hide it - just like people don't want to have to hide their religion. THe same rights that protect religion should protect sexual orientation - no matter if you think it is a choice or not a choice (even more so if it is not a choice). Also, gay rights needs to be fought for because many states do not allow gays to get married with their significant others. How unfair is that.
As for proving if you are gay or not...a private investigator follows you for a few months -- eventually you will get caught. And, obviously, there are the stereotypical gays which scream gay at a mile away.
Re:Huh (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! Another great Slashdot paradox. If the RIAA was supporting legislation that "protects the interests of their artists" we'd have people up in arms about a corporation being able to support and advance legislation. On the other hand we have MS who withdraws political support and we have the same people chanting "how can they let this happen?".
By all accounts MS already runs a pretty open office with support for their gay employees. Why should MS bother to get involved at all? MS isn't really a problem in this case and as far as I'm concerned the further you can distance corporations from politicians the better.
What I don't get.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I don't think it is right to bash gays or to discriminate against them, but why must they insist on it being a real marriage instead of a civil union?? I fail to see what a state recognized marriage gets you. The second person in a gay couple likely works too. The majority of this country happens to believe gay marriage is wrong. Are you going to tell the millions of Christians thier belief system is bubkis? I know the minority tries to do this on a daily basis. What they claim is we try to push pur belief system on them, yet in the same turn, they want ME to believe that Gay Marriages are right. Who's pushing whose beliefs on who now??
Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson (Score:5, Insightful)
The best response to this from a Christian standpoint would be to show grace and love to homosexuals, and ignore the rest of the crowds that want an excuse to attack Christianity because of their intolerance.
But you have demonstrated your own variety of intolerance, which I wish you could see, because there are so many more like you out there who cannot see themselves objectively.
Christians should not discriminate against homosexuals, but non-Christians should not pick apart their neighbors belief structures. Just because I think some activity is wrong doesn't mean I can't be around someone who engages in that activity. Hell, I'll be the first to admit I've also engaged in immoral sexual conduct. Did God damn me to hell? He could have, but He chose not to. The same offer is extended to everyone.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone very big must have threatened them, or, more likely, we simply don't know the story here. I think a boycott would have been GREAT for MS. Firt of all: we all know that conservative christians are the least likely to be MS customers -- second of all: MS would get to look like a good guy for once by doing the right thing -- and thats great publicity.
Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, most children don't actually see their parents reproduce. They see everything but the important bits, namely the act of putting the baby in, and taking the baby out. Thus, the ability to reproduce is arguably not a very important part of child-rearing. Also, many children are only children. I have two half brothers but they were both well into their childhoods when I was born, and they weren't around at until I was three or four. Thus my parents' ability to reproduce had no impact on my existence after the fact that I had been born, unless you count that my mom became [more] unbalanced emotionally after my birth. If THAT is what kids who are raised by gay parents are missing, it would be a huge boon.
So if you think that, why bother crafting such a goofy argument above? Guess what? A gay couple not being able to reproduce IS normal! What more do you want? Also, there are heterosexual couples that cannot have children for one or more of a variety of reasons. Should they not have children because they are abnormal? The whole argument is just stupid.
Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson (Score:5, Insightful)
You gotta really stop with the "they all" comments. Not every Christian person has a problem with gays. There might be a legitimate poll out there that gives rough numbers - but I would bet that you couldn't legitmately say "most". It tends to be that the bigots who don't want gays to get equal rights are the loudest voices - while most of us are like "Hey I hope the best for gays...now let me go back to watching Enterprise." Don't let a bunch of loud mouths make you think all of Christiandom is a bad thing.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting to the argument:
It would be entirely inapropriate for a non-Christian boss to expect you to "hide" all signs of your Christian faith while at work. It's a part of who you are, and even applying social pressure within the office on you to not express that part of yourself is descriminatory against your religion. If you have to live in dread every day that somebody might discover you are a Christian (perhaps even hear a rumor about it) and your chances of promotion or advancement within the company would be damaged by it, then you are being descriminated against, even though you shouldn't be expressing your religion at work anyway!
Secondly, your statement, "nobody is getting fired, nobody strikes out at an interview because he/she is GLBT" is completely untrue. Even in states which have laws against such descrimination, it still happens. Companies lose lawsuits every year over this issue, so unless you are prepared to believe that the courts awarded damages for trumped-up charges in every single one of those cases, it obviously is something which goes on.
Finally, when you say "Sex isn't a non-variable," what on Earth does that mean and what does it have to do with human rights?
For the record: I'm a Christian myself, but I recognize that the rules of my church and the rules of my country ought not be the same thing, as my country governs millions of people who are not part of my church.
Re:How are gays discriminated against at work? (Score:1, Insightful)
Homosexuals are protected from every form of workplace dicrimination outside of the military.
But one thing that you cannot legislate is the right for someone to hate, whether it is because of race, color, religion or sexual preference. However, many homosexuals are trying to do just that. Maybe homosexuals need to be more tolerant of everyone else's opinions?
Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately the reasonable middle isn't the ones out picketing the funerals of gay people. (Fred Phelps) They're not the one's on TV saying that a gay couple adopting a kid is "violence against the child." (The late Pope) They're not the ones that are saying gay people should be put in jail. (2004 Texas GOP platform)
The reasonable middle is fairly silent on these issues, and so it is the whackjob-fringe groups that get all the press and the air time.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're talking marriage, then that's a different animal.
Please be consistent from one senetence of your post to the next.
Federal law assignes some 1,080 benefits to married couples. Gays and Lesbians are excluded from those benefits. That is clearly not treating the same! They don't want special laws or consideration; they want to be treated just like everybody else.
Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't see Apple or IBM or Google or any of the other companies Slashdotters love, offer any support to any gay rights legislation. Microsoft is the only one that did, and now, sadly, they are being forced to withdraw from the battle.
Re:Bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
Gays and Lesbians are not asking for special treatment, they are asking for equal treatment under the law.
If you replace Gay/Lesbian with Black, Oriental, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Christian, etc., you should see my point.
You don't need to change your view. You need to realize that not everyone shares it, and that even if you are the majority, you live in a society that should aspire to protect its minorities.
Intolerance has lead to more grief in this world than anything else.
Incredible. (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy has twisted and distorted Microsoft's position into his opinion that Microsoft hates gays.
He is very biased, unfactual, and a blogger. I don't think you'd hear this kind of ranting from CNN or CBS.
And slashdot accepts him and his opinion as credible news?
Re:Entirely Predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly, any action that helps people, doesn't help all people the same amount. And increasing value for shareholders and employees is helpful to those people. Nothing says they have to help people in some particular manner that you get to choose dynamically.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, that's right. Gays want to join that special club of people who don't have to worry about being attacked on the street or in their own homes. They want to have those special rights like hospital visits and the ability to make medical decisions should their long-term partner become incapacitated. Let's not forget about the special right to keep a job without fear of harassment or being laid off for "poor performance," or any of the other hundreds of "special" rights the rest of the country takes for granted.
When a cat can understand the concept of marriage, its rights and responsabilities, and becomes a valid citizen of the country it lives in, then it should be granted marriage rights. Until then, a cat is a cat, and people are people.
Double check your history. Gay relationships are out of fashion only in the current time. Historically in many cultures they have been accepted and even praised.
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is the definition of marriage. It's not just a legal concept. If it were then Christians wouldn't care. I don't care if gays get a driver's license because that is just a legal concept. Marriage is an institution established by God as being between a man and a woman. That is why us Jesus-freak, Bible-thumpin' intolerants have such an issue with "gay marriage". It represents biblical principles that are sacred to us. Allowing gays to be "married" goes against those principles.
Now...if gays want to be civilly-united so they can have all the legal, state-created rights afforded to those that are married then I say go for it. I have no problem with that because that is just a legal concept.
Radical gays that have a political agenda are pushing this as a social deconstruction device. This country was founded on biblical principles. Anti-God types want to undo that so they have to deconstruct our current way of life so they can reconstruct it based on their way.
Currently our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God are enumerated in our founding documents as a legal concept. That means the government can't touch them for any reason. As soon as God is removed from every aspect of our goverment and way of life then our rights will have to default to be granted to us by the government and therefore changeable.
It's not just about homophobia (which I do not suffer from)...that is just a convenient, emotional label used when the folks with the deconstruction agenda are presented with the facts I stated above.
Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really true. Human beings are patterned to pursue things that cause them pleasure the same as Pavlov's dogs.
My experience, many moons ago, was that I knew that I was attracted to women long before I had experienced sexual ecstacy with a woman. Which contradicts your assertion that it is all learned.
I presume that gays and lesbians, for the most part, have had pretty similar experiences.
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:3, Insightful)
This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial. They can't accept that two people of the same gender can experience love and commemorate that love in marriage. Here is is folks, the plain truth:
How about I give you a different version of plain truth, claim that it is in fact you who are in denial, and we can end up no where closer to a solution, but I can feel better about myself. Here it goes:
The relationship that you gentiles call "love" is not even a shadow of what Christians experience through God. Instead of being fixated on the partner meeting the needs of the other, Christian marriages, bound by selflessness and grace, grow into something far deeper than your average heathen could even understand. So it's no wonder why you equate the "love" that heterosexuals enjoy to that of the homosexuals--neither is really love!
Now, I hope you don't think I was completely serious, I was just trying to show that in such subjective matters, trying to give everyone the "plain truth" is useless, because perception is greater than fact. You, for instance, seem to have enjoyed both homosexual and heterosexual marriages first hand, since you can equate them neatly.
I think I have a better solution: let people believe what they will, and ensure that free speech protects our right to change their minds when we believe they are wrong. Leave the government out of marriage!
I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.
Homophobia is rampant within the Christian community, but that doesn't mean that the proper Christian viewpoint is that homosexuality is OK. They should show homosexuals every bit of grace and love they can in spite of a different sexual orientation. The Bible claims that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God--I don't see why simply considering homosexuality to be a sin is so bigoted if it merely puts us all in the same boat!
Re:Bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it's your religious belief, doesn't mean it's not bigoted. Being a Christian is not a free pass. The origin of your belief is irrelevant - if you believe that being gay is wrong, then are are a bigot, more or less by definition.
This is one problem with religions in general. They teach people to discriminate - homosexuality is a frequent target, but some religions also discriminate against women or ethnic minorities. When they do those things, it's bigotry. Just because it's religiously motivated doesn't make it any less repellant.
Your analogy with stealing is flawed. Theft affects others, which is why we consider it wrong (and make it criminal). Being gay does not, and frankly shouldn't be anyone else's business.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
At the aquarium where I work we have a gay domestic couple of penguins. They live together, have hatched an egg given to them together. It's really cool.
if girl + girl is good, guy + guy can be good too.
I have a helluva lot of female friends who think so anyway. Girl-on-girl is hot to many guys, but a lot of girls (that I know at least) are just as turned on by guy-on-guy as guys are by girl-on-girl.
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I won't be told what to think (Score:1, Insightful)
There are laws to protect you from people who hate fishing
PenGun
Yes
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely!
Which is why they should be able to get married, and to live and work without fear of discrimination.
As for the marriage issue, I think a lot of people don't understand that marriage is far more than just an indication to society of two people being long term partners. There's a whole shedload of legal implications, such as ability to follow your partner to different places with a career change, or implications for what can be left in the event of your partner's death (especially from a taxation point of view), even implications for access to your partner under certain medical care situations. IANAL, so I can't fill you in on the details.. I'm also referring more to the situation in the UK, but I'm sure it's much the same in the US.
Anybody with more legal knowledge care to comment?
Explain to me why 3 men and a cat can't get married but 2 men can?
Hint: Cats aren't human. Humans are.
Furthermore a cat is incapable of consenting to such a union.
If marriage has got anything to do with ability to reproduce then anybody incapable of reproduction shouldn't be able to marry.
On the other hand, if it doesn't have anything to do with reproduction, then why are you so worried about letting same sex couples marry?
If you feel it would devalue "normal" marriages, then you need to take a close look at mariage statistics. They really can't get much more devalued than they already are.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
3 people can't all be married to each other because most (all?) states require that the marriage contract be exclusive, which means that anyone can only be party one such at any given time, and that each contract may only inlvolve two people. Think of it as an exclusivity clause.
Your reasoning is poor. How does allowing two men to marry suddenly let people marry cats, any more than heterosexual marriage does? Two gay men can enter into damn near any other contract, but it doesn't mean that a cat can do the same.
The big problem that the states and feds are having now is that they went on an equality spree over the last 100+ years. The 14th amendment was added to the federal constitution, and since then most states that didn't already have similar legislation have added it to their own constitutions. Some even added laws that were far more expansive than the 14th amendment to the federal constitution.
Now, many states have decided that they want to be able to limit who can enter into certain contracts based on the individuals' gender. Oops, our constitutions won't let us do that! Better hurry up and amend them to make exceptions!
Worse yet, (for the anti-gay-marriage bunch, that is) they'll probably not even be able to get away with "civil unions" for long. Brown v. Board of Education will prevent them from creating two differently-named but otherwise equal contracts, as even that violates the 14th amendment. In other words, constitional (state and federal) amendments will be necessary to prevent full-fledged gay marriage.
They should just change all of them to Civil Unions, abolish "marriage" at the federal level, and call it a day. Let holy men marry people, the government can just have "unions". There, idiotic semantic argument solved.
Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US (Score:3, Insightful)
Give it a few weeks. In a country where the majorities in 11 states enacted constitutional amendments aimed against them, I figure it's only a matter of time until a truly democratic process does exactly what you're talking about.
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:5, Insightful)
You got your government in my religion!
Seriously. When the state is "marrying" people, you don't get to dictate based on religious beliefs who is and isn't allowed to do it just because it isn't what your god intended. Sorry.
State does civil, your churches do marrying. Make it so, otherwise, keep your mouth shut and your morals away from me.
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Companies are private organizations (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the DSM-III, before the 4th edition, you will see homosexuality listed as a disease.
Historically, psychology and medicine in general, has a piss poor record for determining what is and isn't a disease. This is the same discipline that pushed frontal lobotomies as a valid "treatment" right up until the 60's.
Why is it states are passing referendums, public referendums, where homosexual marrige is outlawed by votes over 80%?
Because the U.S. is full of prejudiced, racist, intolerant, uneducated, fuckheads.
The republican party found one single issue they can bank on. As long as the republicans supply a candidate who is for defending marrige as defined between a man and a woman, they will keep winning elections. It is the ONLY reason bush won the last election.
You're probably right. But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) a few of us like to vote our consciences, even if we are a minority. You see a hundred years ago the majority of people thought black people were an inferior race. Two hundred years ago the majority of people thought women were inferior to men, weaker and less intelligent and should not be allowed to own property of their own. Four hundred years ago anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun was declared an evil heretic who had to be burned to protect society.
The majority is not always right. The Bill of rights exists to protect the people from the government and the minorities from the majorities. Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner." It is the reason for the limits on the government's power.
You see just because you are a prejudiced mental reject does not mean that if some day prejudiced mental rejects are in the minority open-minded people should be able to discriminate against them in the workplace if their religion does not get in the way of their job.
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm wondering, is your point of view based on just cultural stereotypes, or do you have an evidence to back this up?
I would argue that any two people, regardless of whether they are male or female, probably have idiosyncrasies in the way they experience love. But, the claim that there is something necessarily very different between a couple consisting of a woman and a man and couples consisting of either a man and a another man or a woman and another woman reeks of sexism.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:1, Insightful)
I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.
I really hate sharing this country with such willfully ignorant people.
They can't accept that people who happen to disagree with them might not fit into the little boxes they construct for us.
The reason I, and as far as I know, most other Christians who are opposed to gay marriage, are opposed is not because we think that two people of the same gender cannot feel love for one another, but because the Bible quite expressly homosexual relations. Attack that if you wish. But please, don't make yourself a fool by making impossibly broad generalizations and attacking people for something that simply is not true.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish that whenever people say that they'd reference the relevant journal articles.
Re:What I don't get.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a Christian and I really don't know if the gay unions are right or not. But I do know that Jesus would not want me to mistreat gay people or diminish their human dignity. Jesus would treat gays with the same love and compassion that he showed the many outcasts he encountered during his time on Earth as recorded in scripture. Sadly, many of those pushing the current anti-gay agenda seem to be devoid of much in the way of compassion.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont have a problem with that...
as far as I am concerned wrong is wrong... even if the supermajority disagrees.
What if Utah passed a state constitutional amendment that let the authorities run roughshod over your rights... tap your phones, put cameras in your house, break in at any time to search and seize your property.
that would be unconstitutional and I would expect the federal courts to overturn the beliefs of the supermajority in Utah.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
So...say a hmosexual man has a "personal preference" for hairy, well endowed biker dudes. Now say that I, a heterosexual man, have a personal preference for girls in bikinis. If by "into the living room" you are talking about TV (and not say books or radio or any of the other things that americans do in living rooms), then I would say that TV sexualizes girls in bikinis WAY MORE than hairy, well endowed biker dudes. At least, that's how it works on the beer comercials I watch.
Seriously, you make it sound like the gays are just banging down you door so they can have sex in front of your grandmother. "We're here, we're queer, we're high on poppers and X and looking for you to fist us!"
Please let me know if I'm way off base here and living in one of the fortunate 20% of households whom the gays have decided, like a limp-wristed G-d on passover, to spare this indignity.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would contend that what you say is an unfair generalization. I consider it "activist" when a judge looks at FOREIGN LAWS to decide their rulings, or when they rule against the will of the people and decide to legislate from the bench. Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE - and without completely changing the meaning of language as well.
Re:Grossly incorrect (Score:1, Insightful)
WFT?
I talk with my gay friends at work about my sexual preferences all the time. If I see a hot chick walk in front of her, I generally say something.
Yes, I am a practicing heterosexual. I believe as a het, it is my job to try to get more hets outs there. Unless of course the guy looks better than me and has a better chance of picking up the same women I would. Or that converting a lesbien chick would still result in a woman that wears trucker books and chews tabaccie. Nope, they can keep both of those.
But how many of us heterosexuals really keep our preferences to ourselves? I don't and I don't give a damn if my homosexual friends talk about their lives as well. What? You think it means you are going to have to hear about fisting and buttfucking if they open their mouth? I don't talk about what I do with my girlfriend, and I'd expect them to keep the intimate portion of their sexlife out of the office, but past that, who the fuck cares? Does it really hurt you?
BTW -- outside of work -- I talk about bangin' chicks and sometimes my gay friends talk about having their cocks smoked. I'm a big boy. It doesn't scare me. Kinda sickens me, but not as much as thinking about rightwing motherfuckers having antisecptic sex with the lights off, missionary style and only on the last thursday of the month. That shit REALLY scares me -- especially since they are more likely to propogate as thats what they think their sole purpose of doing the horizontal limbo is about.
So fuck you biggot.
Re:How are gays discriminated against at work? (Score:2, Insightful)
Come on, that's completely pointless argument. Within this context "gay lovers" is a synonym for wife or husband. You've moved the discrimination from one part of the sentence to the other. I invoke Catch-22.
As for "people with bad attitudes", it's par for the course to site a different reason for dismissal than the real reason. What discrimination is all about is the real reasoning, and I think that's pretty clear to everyone. Once again you've picked a technicality in the wording of the argument and completely failed to discuss the spirit.
non sequitur (Score:1, Insightful)
"no pictures of gay lovers" cannot apply to all persons, gay or straight, by definition - it applies only to gay persons.
Oh never mind, get back to thumping your bible.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that Microsoft's market share is
Surely not - shouldn't the real point be why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?
That's the issue as far as I'm concerned. Has the US ideals of democracy sunk so low that this is just a given now and not worthy of comment?
Re:How are gays discriminated against at work? (Score:1, Insightful)
These are the same "others" who would have seen the "no pictures of interracial lovers" rule as applicable to all persons, white or black, and thus not discrimination.
The reduced hours and layoffs mentioned by the original poster were for "bad attitude" not for "being gay". Or are you saying they're discriminating against people with "bad attitudes"?
You sound pretty confrontational, there. Are you a young straight non-handicapped white male? If so then a bigoted employer might cut you some slack, but if not then perhaps your next performance review is going to include a discussion of this attitude problem.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
The NERVE of them... its like they think they have some kind of right to do it!
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep it up. Until we see a symbolic excommunication of Jim Phelps (I don't CARE that he's not catholic), I'll paint all christians like him.
Let's Godwin this: there were probably members of the nazi party who were horrified at what was happening to the jews too. This didn't obligate anyone to give a damn and listen to both sides of the party line.
This is a religion that teaches you that by default you are DAMNED to eternal suffering and torment because you are inherently WRONG unless you accept some external source of salvation. I would like to make it my life's work to dismantle this life-destroying belief.
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:3, Insightful)
This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial.
How amazingly arrogant. To categorically assume that anyone who might dare to think differently than you about a complex and controversial social topic must automatically be doing so because they are "very disturbed" and "in denial". Which side of this debate is supposed to be the closed-minded and intolerant ones again?
The love that two men or two women feel for each other is no different than the love that a heterosexual couple experiences.
What about the love a man feels for his seven wives, or for a goat, or for some member of his immediate family? Some people will say as long as everybody involved is okay with it, whatever floats their boats. Others might find unconventional relationships to be immoral or aberrent. Such questions can be particularly controversial when the issue of marriage is added, since it juxtaposes what is originally a religous ceremony with a lifestyle that is at odds with the teachings of the predominant religion in America. Depending upon one's values, they might find themselves on either side of such a debate, but only those too ignorant to consider others' perspectives, such as yourself, could be accused of covering their ears and screaming loudly, 'I'm not listening!'
I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.
At least you admit your intolerance is based out of your hate for those who think differently than you do. But, when it comes to people who think their way is the "plain truth", that everyone else must be "very disturbed" and who "hate" such people, are they really any different from you at all?
Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson (Score:2, Insightful)
Eureka! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes! I've got it now... You are oh so right.
Things that are harmful should be illegal... I don't know why I didn't see it that way before.
Lets outlaw fatty foods, and smoking, and drinking too, those are all harmful to the parties partaking of them.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Entirely Predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of the generally selfish nature of the artificial entities we call Corporations, one would expect that we will always advocate for legislation that is in their best interest, often at cross-purposes to the "public good."
I would suggest that Corporations have no place in the political/legislative process what-so-ever -- advocating neither for nor against legislation; and, interestingly, that is also in the interest of share-holders as profits are not wasted on advocacy.
As an aside, would the Free State Project [freestateproject.org] support passing a gay-rights bill in New Hampshire; or, is that not the kind of Liberty you have in mind?
Re:To Reply To All Of You (Score:3, Insightful)
How can I prove something that is not there? Prove to me that it is a choice. For me it is not a choice. Yes I could force myself to go to a guy, kiss him and try and have sex with him...then again, I could also take a knife and stab my hand with it, then take the knife and poke my eye out. So since my sexuality is not a choice, (the same of my friends/acquaintences), then it is a logical assumption that it is not about a choice - it is how you feel.
As for protection - if there is supposed to be this separation of church and state - how is the church getting the state to pass anti-gay laws. Same as usual - state is run by people, people have beliefs, people vote and lobby on these beliefs. I do not think religious rights should be removed (Thats insane) but I think sexuality rights should be on the same level as religious rights.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you need to look closer, or take off your blinders, or something.
Assault someone because they're wearing yellow or very nearly any other stupid reason in the world, and it's assault. Assault that SAME person with a slightly different, similarly stupid motivation (skin tone, religous jewelry, presumed or acknowledged sexual orientation) and suddenly it's a "hate crime" with far more severe consequences.
If the law isn't taking assault seriously enough, then we should change that - not cook up extra "thought crime" statutes to tack on. And the use of the phrase "thought crime" here is completely apt - we're talking about a law that criminalises the thought behind the crime, rather than the act itself. This is a very very very bad precedent, regardless of any other aspects of it - thought crimes are a category of laws that should never be made, for any purpose whatsoever, period.
I agree wholeheartedly with all genuine efforts toward legal equality. The State shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with defining, recognising, rewarding or penalising marriage. Propose eliminating those privileges and I'll back you. Propose expanding those privileges to cover new classes instead, and I'll fight you every step of the way.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
They allow discrimination. Now, I don't care what your political leanings are, intentionally hamstringing someone based on something they cannot control is wrong. Period.
And worse, it should be unconstitutional but it's not.
So what *does* the law say... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a believer, you're expected to remain sexually pure... to not have a hint of sexual immorality. It really is that black and white.
If you're a government, the Bible says *nothing* about it.
I've heard arguments about how allowing gays to marry would induce the fall of society, and I just don't buy into that substructure-type view of society. Gay people will get married, life goes on.
Furthermore, this country was built on equality, and as the child of immigrants seeking freedom, I respect that view.
Anyways, there's always a lot of un-Christ-like flaming when this subject comes up... I'd rather just put it behind us and get back to love, because it's pretty clear that discrimination and flaming isn't making things any clearer.
Re:Companies are private organizations (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmm-hmmmm. So you want to tell 80% of the people to go fuck themselves?
If they're wrong I'll gladly tell 99% of the population. Numbers don't make you any more right. Especially when that large percentage is trying to tell me what to do regarding my personal life or doing anything that is not their concern. I'm not gay, but I should go fuck a guy just to piss you self-righteous wankers off. You don't know what is right and what is wrong and the christian bible tells you so (if you happen to be christian, just an educated guess). Look to your own actions and leave others to theirs.
It is not going to happen. It is going to make for more violence.
Hopefully whomever initiates the violence is prepared for the consequences. You see in some places being christian is enough to get you murdered. Some day that may be the case in the U.S. In the U.S. currently the law forbids discriminating against christians, don't worry once the Bill of rights is tossed out, nothing will protect you from being fired for your beliefs either, or even for just being the wrong sect of christian (whichever ones don't win). I hope you enjoy it.
Black is not a choice. Homosexuality is.
Homosexuality is as much of a choice as choosing to believe that the earth revolves around the sun.
It is no different than people who want to have sex with children, or people who want to have sex with animals.
Children and animals cannot consent in an informed way. It is a completely separate issue and in no way analogous.
I'm sorry you can't deal with your own homosexual feelings and believe in some superstitions that make you think you will be punished for it. Maybe you should turn of the nice man on the 700 club and actually think for your own self. Please don't reproduce.
Re:How are gays discriminated against at work? (Score:3, Insightful)
No workplace has a rule about "no pictures of gay lovers" and that's the problem. The discrimination isn't codified so one can make a rational choice about where to work, if it were, very few people would work there and the business would likely face boycotts by consumers and shareholders. The "bad attitude" excuse is really just blaming the victim. Because the employer allows a predetory and descriminatory environment, a perfectly normal adverse reaction is conveinently labled a "bad attitude".
Your word games here are the same tripe trotted about by the White Citizen's Councils back in the 60's. Your attempt to pervert US law to allow for legal descrimination based on religious views is treason. And I do mean treason. Being a Southerner, I've heard this crap muttered under the breath of rednecks all my life. I usually don't care what idiots mutter, but if you fools actually manage to codify your sectarian views into law, expect me to be duty bound by the Constitution and as an American to resist by any means necessary.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a shame if some place chooses to fire a worker just because they are gay. On the same hand, what is keeping an employer from fireing me just because he dosen't like my face? Should I have special protection from being fired for being unattractive?
Is it just me (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Microsoft is not the government, they are a private civilian business.
2. Gays are not being discriminated against and persecuted nearly as much as some claim, I know, a number of my family and friends are gay and they're not suffering any of these things in the states they live in across the USA. In fact, most have found being gay is considered cool more often than not which they also find creepy and wish you straights would leave them the hell alone.
3. It's the height of hypcrisy to lambaste MS for everything under the sun, then expect them to go to the mat for your pet politics and socialism.
This battle is not going to play out one way or another based on Microsoft. Why don't we just blame them retroactively for the Holocaust because Bill hasn't invented a time machine to send Homeland Security agents back to assassinate Hitler, or blame Bill Gates for proton decay?
Re:this is crap (Score:5, Insightful)
you're already equal to the rest of us, just like women and blacks
Not knowing what you said, you said it.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just intellectual dishonesty... you're phrasing things in dishonest ways to prove a false point.
You can marry pretty much any person you want.
A homesexual person cannot.
Trying to use semantics to prove a point is just petty and useless.
Corporate power (Score:5, Insightful)
But today many of the same people (I'm sure) are bitching about Microsoft's decision to stay out of this gay rights legislative battle.
Lesson learned: Corporate power is OK as long as they're fighting on my side.
Hypocrites.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Genetically it's barely a step away from incest, and an abomination!
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is fine with me (Score:2, Insightful)
You Sir, have very skillfully said what I had been stumbling for words for.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you! I'm glad that someone else is dismissing the term "activist judge" as a conservative rallying cry. As much as I support queer rights (as well as human rights in general), the first time I heard the term "activist judge", I understood the concern that federal judges may not have been deciding on an issue of law, rather, may have tried to decide on the right thing to do. I'm not saying that I agreed with the conservative sentiment, but I understand the concern and the potential appearance of the decision.
However, when the term was used again in the Terri Schaivo case by Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, it was so obviously bullshit that (IMO) it totally devalued their original use of the term...especially because (historically, at least) the legislative and executive branches of the government don't get to make a law for one person that only affects one person. (Sorry, the Terri Schaivo case a big trolling point and I hate to bring it up, but it's the only other time I've heard the term "activist judge" used -- I won't talk about it any further outside of this context.)
The thing that I really take away from it is that no matter what side of an issue you sit on, it just doesn't seem right to break the system to get your way, because ultimately, someone else will justify breaking the system to get their way and you may not like it. Was the system broken by anyone in the LGBT case? I honestly don't know, but at the time, the concern was valid, and deserved some consideration. Interestingly enough, (and depending on your point of view) my comment about breaking the system could be applied to both sides of either case where the term "activist judge" was thrown around. I guess it just comes down to a golden rule: "Don't be a dick." I guess we have quite a few politicians who could care less about that.
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, fer... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the fundamentalists, it isn't so much their religion that gets slammed, but the willful ignorance that goes along with it. "Intelligent design" is *not* science, no matter how many times you say them in the same sentence. Getting upset at gay couples for wanting the same recognition as non-gay couples is not socially fair, no matter how much anal sex or cunnilingus upsets your delicate sensibilities. And unfortunately, fundamentalists are one of the groups to do the most discriminating.
That's the difference. There are many Christians I hold in great esteem, and would not dare (or even want) to impugn their beliefs. I don't even believe fundamentalists are real Christians; I believe they are a cult.
But that's perhaps a kneejerk reaction to those fundamentalists who believe Mormonism, Catholicism, and Unitarianism are "just" cults.
Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson (Score:1, Insightful)
These same Christians are not permitted to cut their hair, eat bacon cheeseburgers, wear polyesther, go out dancing on Friday nights or touch a member of the opposite sex outside of the confines of marraige (shit, can't even touch them at their wedding.) But Christians are ready and willing to ignore all of these laws.
The next time you see a Christian protesting something silly like this on a Friday night because their church/doctrine says so, pick up the nearest rock and hurl it at their head. That, afterall, is the sentence for their crimes according to their own fucking manual.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't agree with you more. I believe that marriage is an institution of religion, and that the term marriage should be applied to couples who are wed by an accepted religion (no scientology or cults, please). The government should take whatever benefits they have historically given married couples and make up a new type of union with exactly those benefits, and allow them universally to all couples of either gender.
As a rational member of society, I believe that I do not have the right to dictate to you what is love. I don't have the right to infringe on you whatever I may believe. As a Catholic, though, I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong (when sex is involved). No one can shake my belief on this, because part of faith is the idea that there are some things whose correctness is established by God, and not subject to my review or approval. When my conscience interferes with my faith (as it does here), I believe that my conscience is malformed.
America allows me the right to passionately believe what I do, but it only works when the rights of all of its citizens are defended. When the government calls it marriage, I feel compelled to try and intervene somehow because I believe that the weakening of the instition of marriage is the cause of many of today's problems, and in my eyes this weakens it further by taking the word and dilluting it even further from what it was meant to be. If it was just called something else, I'd support it fully.
I can't describe in words why such a trivial thing like renaming the civil act means so much to me. Perhaps its because true faith in modern society is so dilluted already - sure there's a conservative political movement, but there are few things less Christian than a mass of people who declare a person who declare one form of sinner is less human than another form of sinner, who endlessly warmonger to solve some feeling of vengeance that seems to endlessly beat in their chest, and try to evangelize publically while ignoring the teachings of their own faith in their own homes. Regardless of motive, the worlds of religion and politics were never meant to be such close bedfellows and any time you try to secularize a thing such as marriage which has existed for thousands of years in various incarnations, but all of them religious, you're going to end up in trouble. Encourage people to set up families with tax benefits and everything else, but secularize it AWAY from marriage and stop trying to poach a sacrament that millions consider holy that predates my own religion - that solves a number of conflicts various religions have with the implementation of secular marriage and is the only solution that truly seperates church from state.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thought crimes? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the law isn't taking assault seriously enough, then we should change that - not cook up extra "thought crime" statutes to tack on. And the use of the phrase "thought crime" here is completely apt - we're talking about a law that criminalises the thought behind the crime, rather than the act itself. This is a very very very bad precedent,
Courts routinely take into account the reasoning and motivations of the accused in determining what sort of charge to levy and the severity of the penalty. What is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder if not the difference of the killer's mental state? Hate crimes are a natural extension of the well established precedent that some actions can be made worse when combined with a dispicable motive.
let's be equal - don't recognize any marraiges (Score:2, Insightful)
If a religious groups wants to marry a couple, fine, but nobody else has to recognize it.
If a couple want the "benefits" of marraige, have their lawyers draft a 50-page "financial merger and caretaking of minor children and durable power of attorney" agreement and file it at the courthouse.
As for social security survivor's benefits, sorry, no marraige, no widow's benefits. As for private pension survivor's benefits, that's up to the company doing the pension. Remaining 401(k) balances would be covered by beneficiary clauses or go to the estate.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
And while were on the subject, why is polygamy a felony in many states? I may not agree with it, but I see it as an equal cause to gay marriage (not to mention the fact that there are religious freedom implications with polygamy).
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more specifically, they're afraid that knowledgable and competent judges will rightly find their bigoted and pointless laws in violation of constitutional protections, and over-turn them. So they have to circumvent the fact that the courts aren't packed with reactionary bigots by encoding their own bigotry and ignorance right into the constitution itself.
It wasn't activist judges that made gay marriage legal in Massachusettes. A valid court case was brought before the judges and the judges rightly ruled that there was no constitutional reason to not grant the civil licence, and turned the issue back to the legislature to rectify. Which they did. And gee, the sky didn't fall.
Equal Protection under the law: it's for everybody.
Religious right-wing bigots hate that, though, which is why they're going through and trying to circumvent rational judicial rulings by encoding their hateful bigotry into the very constitutions themselves.
There's a reason the founding fathers put the Bill of Rights in there and stated over and over again that the Constitution and its amendments were there to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". Civil Rights should never be put up to a popular vote. An individuals basic and fundamental rights should never be subjected to mob rule.
It should be noted that when interracial marriage was legalized, over 90% of the population was against interracial marriage. It should also be noted that virtually all of the histrionic gnashing of teeth about the disaster that "changing marriage" would unleash upon the country that we're seeing over the gay marriage issue is almost identical to the same crap that was spewed by foes of interracial marriage several decades ago.
And yes, marriage is a civil right. Among the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license are such things as freedom from being compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the freedom from having the government break up your family and deport a spouse because they're not a citizen. These are rights that are not available in any other way, through any other legal document that can ever be drawn up.
The simple fact is that these laws are not only pointlessly punitive encoding of ignorant bigotry into law, but they're violations of religious freedom. My religion, and the religions of a great many people, does not prohibit same-sex unions or marriages. The only real justifications ever cited against same-sex marriages are religious in nature. Why should the dogma of one religion be encoded into law (or the constitution) and not another? The state, as yet, has cited absolutely no compelling reason for denying gay couples a civil marriage license.
As long as two athiests who cannot have children (like my friends Mark and Jennifer) can go down to the justice of the peace and get a marriage license with nothing more than the required fee and two witnesses, then I can see no rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for denying the same exact right to a gay couple.
But that's just my two cents.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why should only same-race couples be able to marry the ones they love?"
Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.
Flash back: 150 years in the south:
"Why should only white couples be allowed to marry the ones they love?"
Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.
Flash back: 250 years in America:
"Why should women become chattel, and men their effective owner?"
Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal courts haven't been arbitrarily reading their own values into the constitution. The constitution has a pretty clear "equal protection" clause, and is pretty clear about separating church and state (if not explicitly in the constitution, then in the subsequent writings of the authors thereof, Thomas Jefferson in particular was very clear about the concept).
If a state super-majority were to decide to strip people of color of their right to vote, the Judiciary would have ever right to step in and say "no, that's wrong", and they'd be absolutely right to do so. That's not being an "activist judge" (the latest code-word for a judge who decides something based on reason and logic rather than on the speaker's prejudices and wishes). That's a judge doing their job. Just because a judge comes to a decision you don't personally like or feel comfortable with, doesn't mean they're being "activist" or in fact that they are wrong.
The judges coming down on the side of treating gays and gay couples equally under the law are making the correct decisions. You don't have to like it, and that is your choice and your right. But that doesn't mean that the judges are wrong.
Eleven states (Score:3, Insightful)
Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan, and Oregon
All but the last two are red states. Some on the list are among the reddest states in the country. Getting an anti-gay-marriage initiative passed in Oklahoma or Georgia is a lot different from getting one passed in Massachusetts or California. By choosing those eleven states, they are now able to go around saying "Look, 11 of 11 states voted to ban gay marriage!" They're hoping they can build momentum based on people not thinking about this.
Re:How are gays discriminated against at work? (Score:3, Insightful)
The government makes decisions based on law and rights. We are a secular state, so the morality or lack thereof doesn't enter the equation. Where it does, we have judges to point out that the legislature isn't doing their job.
You're "sour grapes" assertion simply shows your ignorance about the legal and political theories that led to the founding of our nation. One would think that someone who loved their country would take the time to figure out why it has the laws it does and just what those "original meanings" are.
The Founding Fathers discussed this very issue, what happens when you have a government that isn't concerned about morals? They decided that if society couldn't produce moral enough people to run a government, there were bigger problems than the design of the Federal government. You really should go read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers sometime, they debate this very subject in detail.
I hate to break the news to you, but George Washington is the least important character in the formation of the US legal system and said a lot of dumb things, you'd be much better off ignoring anything the man said with regard to our laws or the Constitution. The two quotes from Adams do not support the view you think they support. I'm familiar with both. The first is in regard to the moral government point in the previous paragraph. His point there was that the Federal government could not be depended upon to enforce that only moral men served or that those who served would remain moral. If you'd read it IN CONTEXT, you'd see that it supports my position and undermines your own.
The second quote by Adams has no bearing. It's self-congratulatory and was simply stating that the actions and ideology of the Founding Fathers was in line with Christian principles. Not that they were made because of Christian principles, there's a large difference there.
Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Pulitzer prize + Bancroft prize) supports these views and provides the context your posts have so desperately missed.
While we're pulling out 200 year old quotes, I notice that you don't have any Jefferson. I wonder why that would be? Oh, and where's mention of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1796 and signed by John Adams:
It is discrimination and my opining on your word games stand. Given how badly you understand legal theory or US history, I can't take your claim that it's not discrimination seriously. In the examples given, the courts would see otherwise.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not really different in principle than classifying homicide into murder and manslaughter, and then each into various degrees. For whatever reason, premeditated killings receive a harsher sentence than accidental or self-defense killings. Knowingly killing a police officer can similarly carry a much harsher penalty. Intention has always mattered.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there's opposition to it that has the financial backing of big companies. Money is required to accomplish anything (good or bad) in U.S. politics.
bigotry... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on now. Certain southern states recently put up referendums to repeal laws banning interracial marriage . Guess what? A significant percentage of the population voted to keep the bans
So when BS like discrimination against homosexuals or jews or muslims come up, I no longer wonder why. The answer is that a disturbingly large percentage of the american population are bigoted fucktards. There's millions of real-life archie bunkers out there, chewing away on their fat cigars and whining about queers and blacks and jews.
Go ahead and mod me down. The truth hurts, but modding down doesnt make the truth go away.
Hipocrisy as Work (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when are Slashdot readers fans of multinational corporations influencing government legislation? Oh, I guess when the bill they're pushing coincides with your personal beliefs, huh?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know plenty of women who are attracted to other women, but choose to pursue relationships strictly with men. Social pressure? Perhaps. It's still a choice. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but there's always a choice when it comes to behavior, regardless of our genetic predispositions. I might be more susceptible to alcohol addiction than someone else, but that doesn't mean I'll allow myself to become an addict, or give in to the addiction, depending on how you want to view it. (And I'm not saying that being gay is morally equivelant to being an alcoholic, I'm just talking about predispositions).
Are some people born predisposed to having a same-sex attraction? No doubt. Have others had bad experiences with the opposite sex and found they can relate better to the same sex? I'm sure of it. To say everyone arrives at the same place in the same way is ridiculously arrogant.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
the issue of gay marriage is far far more than hurt feelings, uncomfortable situations and disapproval of others. it has to do with tax rights, inheritance rights, the right to visit your partner in the hospital. our country has a very strict separation of church and state. just because christians believe that gays are sinners by definition does not mean that the government believes so. oh yeah, and that separate of church and state is in the FEDERAL constitution. it is not harmful to children to be raised by a gay couple. that has not be proven, nor will it ever be since it's false. what it does do is teach children the ability to accept people who are different, something it seems like you need to learn to do yourself...
Re:*Democracy* at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Now on a broader view there have been a number of arguments that movement like the ones to have homosexual civil unions or marriages are infringing on the beliefs of others who want to keep marriage "sacred". I have a hard time understanding this as in no case I am aware of are heterosexual unions being discouraged or altered in any way, they are just loosing their status as "the only".
On the other hand, the (inheritors of the) Christian Coalition is definitely trying to push their views that only heterosexual relationships are OK, and they are trying to do so through the law. Now I don't feel I have any legal right to challenge what is taught in churches, the same way that I don't feel that there is any legal right out there for people to challenge what goes on in people's bedrooms (murder, abuse, etc... not included).
On the specific subject of marrige, I have yet to hear a reasoned argument about why a homosexual couple should not be allowed to marry that does not base itself on one of three grounds:
[list]
[*]religious grounds (God said so... and it says so in only this one sentence of this translation of the Bible).
[*]tradition (this is more often than not really the first one in disguise)
[*]it would encourage the "homosexual lifestyle": promiscuity, sexual orgies, drugs, and usually vague other bad things (clearly unmarried heterosexuals don't do that... and wouldn't marriage/commitment tend to settle people down, even assuming that this was a valid stereotype in the fist place?... oh, and another disguise for the first one)
[/list]
I have never seen a homosexual activist try and force someone into becoming a homosexual, but the reverse is commonly not true.... So... whom is trampling on who's rights?
Is that a decent answer?
PS... you have no legal rights to try and force the general culture to change, or not to change. The whole idea of the bill of rights was to keep this majority culture from crushing other opinions. A group is currently trying to use the law system to keep the culture from changing. We saw this same exact scenario when black and white people started marrying... with the exact same arguments and process (first it went bad, then it slowly got better).
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
So there's no difference at all.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
That a justice might use foreign laws as one aspect in the justification of their decision doesn't bother me in the least, and I'm not sure why it bothers you. OBviously they came to the result of their decision based on the constitution and thoughtful deliberation. In the explaination of the decisions, I think it's perfectly fine to cite any source they want to in an attempt to make it clear why they decided the way they did.
And as for ruling against the will of the people, THAT IS THE JOB OF JUSTICES. Otherwise it'd just be put up to popular vote.
I point out that many of the best decisions have been against majority opinion, in many cases against super-majority opinion. Decisions like the abolishment of segregation or the legalization of interracial marriage. Nobody today really looks back on those as bad decisions (unless they're an unrepetant racist), but at the time, they were wildly unpopular. More than 90% of the people were against the legalization of interracial marriage.
That number is somewhat less for gay marriage (70-something percent at last poll, I think) today, and the people opposing it today are just as wrong as the people opposing interracial marriage were back in the 50's. It's only a matter of time, but sooner or later, same sex marriage will be legal... just like it's becoming in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and across Scandanavia.
And even in the case of the Vermont decision on gay marriage, the judges did NOT "legislate from the bench". A legitimate case was brought before them, and the judges found no constitutional backing for denying the same sex couples equal protection and rights under the law, so they TURNED IT BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE to rectify the issue as they saw fit. The Legislature there decided to rectify with civil unions. It was a very heated debate then, but now nobody cares. The sky didn't fall. It's similar in Massachucettes. All this strong opposition, but they decided to pass gay marriage, and it's done, and really, the sky didn't fall.
All this opposition is manufactured outrage and once it's all done, nobody will care, and twenty years down the pike everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
And as for changing the meaning of language, that's just B.S. The definition of marriage changes constantly, generation to generation. Besides, gay marriage doens't affect one single church or religious institution in any way. The fact is that "marriage", the word, applies to two completely separate things... the religious ceremony (untouched by allowing gay marriages), and a civil licence that grants rights and responsibilities to two partners in society.
I have two friends, Mark and Jennifer. They are both athiests. He had a vasectomy, and she is unable to bear children due to cervical cancer which cause the removal of her uterus. THey met and fell in love. They got married by walking down to the city hall with the correct fee, and two witnesses, and got their marriage license.
As long as it's perfectly legal for those two to get married, you'll have a very hard time justifing or rationalizing your reasons for wanting to deny the same right to Bill and Ted, or Jane and Marsha.
You don't have to like it. But your dislike of it is no justification for denying over a thousand very real rights to other people you don't even know.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can marry pretty much any person you want. A homesexual person cannot.
Funny that you mention intellectual dishonesty and then you commit it on your very next sentence. No one can just marry pretty much anyone else.
The poster, just like you or I, cannot marry any person he wants. I can't certainly marry my sister, or my mom, or a married woman, or a 10-year old, or two women, or Bob down the street. Can you? Can a gay man? Can a straight man? Can a bisexual man? Can a sheep-loving man?
It's not a "semantics" trick. It's the very defintion of equality. I suggest that you look it up. You seem to be the one that's trying to change the widely accepted meaning of the English language to suit your views.
If you feel like you must make a case for gay marriage, do it with honesty. For example, if you believe that for marriage all you should need is love then you can make an argument that two men can love each other. IMHO it would be the wrong argument to make, but at least it would be an honest argument.
Re:Companies are private organizations (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a state law... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn this in your bones before you try to make any changes in the world: GOVERNMENT IS BY THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL, FOR THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL. (That's descriptive, not prescriptive, by the way.)
It's kinda pointless trying to change a system that you don't understand; your actions my even be counter-productive. Once you've understood the purpose of the system, you can begin to see that it is rational and internally consistent. THEN you can begin to formulate your plans to change it.
Gay and tired of hearing it (Score:4, Insightful)
Again and again, the "special rights" argument. It is empty, without substance, existing only to provide seemingly-reasonable talking points for the unthinking.
To borrow from a post I and another gay man made on another website earlier this year:
Let's take one example of the "protected class" status that you claim I have. Say you and I work for the same employer, one who provides some level of health insurance coverage to employees. Is it acceptable with you if I am, in effect, forced indirectly to subsidize the insurance plan of your spouse and children because you have a "normal" family, while I am denied the opportunity to add my partner/lover or the child of my partner to my policy? Remember, you're getting your extra piece of the pie; the money to pay your family premium has to come from somewhere. Should you divorce your wife and marry another woman with children, I would indirectly contribute to their coverage as well.
When you and I retire, your wife at the time (let's say wife #4 by now, a younger woman) would likely share your retirement benefits. If you precede her in death, the benefits to her will most likely continue. My non-sharable, non-transferable benefits, however, will cease entirely upon my death, even while your widow's checks may continue for several more decades -- just another piece of the pie that she deserves, obviously, for loving a person of the opposite sex. In some cases, more than one of your ex-wives could also draw certain benefits based upon your employment record and retirement plans.
And if, before your death, you needed government assistance for nursing home care, your wife would not lose her home. If I needed the same care, however, I would be forced to liquidate my assets, including the home I may have shared with a same-sex partner for 50 years. Even if the house is in both names, I could be forced to sell my portion, effectively throwing him out on the street unless he was able to buy the house again, this time at its appreciated value. (Although it would not happen in my own family, legal wrangling by a deceased partner's biological family sometimes bankrupts the surviving partner, regardless of the safeguards they had in place.)
The notion that to be gay means that gay marriage is automatically supported is reductionist...but unsurprising.
My partner and I don't care about "marriage." What we want is to not be treated as though our ten-year committment is somehow going to ruin society if it's recognized in any way.
We just want to not be treated differently. Whether you call it marriage is up to you. Activists insisting on same-gender "marriage" vs. calling it something else are missing the point. Acting as though any progress towards equality is insufficient if the label doesn't come along is not only childish, it's unrealistic and counterproductive. Society is not going to evolve because you throw a tantrum. You have only to look at the history of the civil rights movement to learn.
It's grimly amusing to reflect on the notion that the anti-gay-marriage crowd isn't worried about the ever-increasing divorce rate. But that is the classic tactic of the demagogue: conflate the issues, muddy the waters with emotionally loaded terminology, and go after the more vulnerable.
Personally, I'm tired of having to beg for crumbs from society's table and endure the abuse. Antigay prejudice (yes, PREJUDICE) is pretty much the last respectable prejudice in America (though there's still some room for anti-immigrant sentiment). And the "pro-gay-marriage" activists play right into the hands of the bigots.
Cracker Barrel got away with firing people for being gay for over a decade before they decided the adverse publicity had become too much. Several wrongful termination lawsuits got tossed out; the employees had no recourse other than to go get another job and hope that their potential new employers weren't bigoted.
- "Why did you leave your last job?"
- "Well, sir, I was fired for
Re:human right? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the human right to employ whom I please?
You mean the human right to only employe whites, because you do not please to hire blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or South Asians? No, that's not a human right.
Re:Bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Bible say to hate the sin and not the sinner? As far as I know, its ok to be gay and be a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is not ok to perform homosexual acts. (I can't speak about other Christian denominations.)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
I like to be open to people's opinion and respect them. This core religious belief is purely intolerance. I can't respect that. I will not tolerate intolerance.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
Please realize that two of my best friends are Gay. I let them know my viewpoints, and I accept them for the choices they have made. I try to follow the example of Love the Sinner and Hate the Sins. I'm not perfect, neither are they. And they have accepted my viewpoints so I know I'm doing something right.
Someone says 'Gays are unnatural' and they are supposedly closeminded, bigoted, hatefull... But the second someone says hatefull things about a christian (or like-minded person), its okay for them to say it's 'wrong' for me to believe in what the Bible says?
It's 'supposedly' wrong for me to say that your wrong and living against the Bible (not that I would force the bible one you personally, but I will let you know my opinion on the matter), but it's OKAY for you to say that I'm wrong and judge me for my following my religion? Its okay for you to judge my life and call me a bigot (or worse - out of your ignorance), but it's not okay for me to believe what I want to believe? that my friends is hypocracy.
I personally believe that it IS wrong to be Gay. that's what the bible says. But that's YOUR personal choice to make if your believe likewise. The only one that should be judging you, from a strictly christian point of view, should be God. Not the Christian. Are there hypoctrical and self righteous christians that do? yes. And that's just as hypocritical, imo.
This is a bash against self-righteous christians who judge gays when they should know that God will judge them, and a bash against self righteous gays who think that My right to be a christian is wrong.
Bring the 'flamebait' mods rain. I'm not afraid to say what I believe in. And I will not be called a bigot and ignorant. You making that statement puts YOU on the 'bigoted ignorant' level that you are apparently so against. That's my soap-box rant.
Chris
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the right to not have your spouse deported because they are not a citizen are very much liek the right to speak or vote or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that they are not.
I put it to you that you disagree with me precisely because you are ignorant. Ignorant of the impact on gay people of these punative laws that deny them, their spouses, and their children the same rights and protections that you and others take for granted.
You talk about freedom as though it means being able to feel good about yourself.
Nowhere have I said anything that would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion. That is your invention and your attempt to inject motivations and words into me that you have prepared talking points to tear down.
I talk about freedom as it is, or at least should be: equal treatment under the law for all individuals. I think that I should have, just like you, some say in every single aspect of my governance, period. But I also think that just because you don't like who I love and share my life with, that you cannot and should not be able to deny me the same rights you enjoy, in the same way you enjoy them. Similarly, I should not be denied the same rights you enjoy becuase the color of my skin is different than yours.
And as to your last point, marriage is most definitely a civil liberty. It is a civil license that grants rights that can be obtained in no other way, such as the aforementioned rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled to testify against your spouse. Those are very obviously civil rights, limiting the government's ability to meddle in my personal relationship and partership without any valid reason for doing so. Unless and until you can provide a compelling reason for the state to be able to come in and break up my relationship, but to NOT be able to do the same to YOUR relationship, you have not proven your case.
And the burden, dear friend, is on you and those who would try and deny me equal rights and equal protection... not for me to prove I am somehow worth of being treated equally.
Re:*Democracy* at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you should look up the word "self-determination". It has nothing to do with whether or not some other person has the right to get legally married.
Max
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Think of lawsuit prevention (Score:1, Insightful)
Anyone who starts a sentence with a disclaimer such as "I am not anti gay", "I'm not a racist, but" probably is whatever they are disclaiming.
My brother works for a fortune 500 company which will remain nameless. This company opened a call center in Orlando for customer ordering and customer service calls.
Dude. I heard this story about this family that hired this babysitter, and she was on acid, and she ended up microwaving the baby. It's totally true.
The call center manager found a new job and gave the 2 week notice that he was quiting. The director chose his secretary to replace him?? Not only was she not qualified to be a secretary but she got the position from banging the director on the side.
Dude, what the fuck is it with you and question marks?
Eventually the VP of HR found out about this and written up the call center director and threatened to fire him and he also fired the secretary who was promoted to manager.
The secretary then sued because she was hispanic and discriminated agaisnt. She won 1.3 million dollars!
Now tell me how frivilious lawsuits agaisnt wrongfull termination are not out of control?
OK, I'll tell you, frivolous lawsuits against wrongful termination are not out of control. You give us a bullshit story which you probably heard off of a right wing talk radio show. You won't even name the name of the company, which is strange because if this secretary did exist, and she did sue the company and she did win 1.3 million dollars then it would be a matter of public record, hardly something that we'd have to shamefully whisper about on /. Save your anecdotes, give us statistics or fuck off.
I am not saying gays and lesbians should not have equal rights. I am only saying the more laws try to help the more lawyers will use them to hurt the people they are supposed to help.
So we should get rid of those laws against robbery and other crimes because unscrupulous lawyers will just use them to hurt the victims of robbery and assault. OK, that makes sense, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic with a penchant for chewing on lead based paint and drinking Nyquil, that is. So if we don't have laws that say that discriminating against someone because of their race, creed, color, sexual orientation or disability is illegal then exactly how do we reach this wonderful nirvana where everyone loves one another? Sure, some people are enlightened and won't need an anti-discrimination law to prevent them from firing someone just because they're a queer, or a nigger, or a spic, or a kike or a cripple but others will need to be bitch-slapped right up against the side of the head to dissuade them from such behavior.
For example I have aspergers which is a mild form of autism. Many employers wont hire me because I could sue the company for wrongfull termination.
Is that why you can't spell? Is that why you don't know what a question mark is for? Tell me, how the fuck is an employer going to know if you have Asperger's syndrome? Do you walk into interviews and say "Oh, BTW, I have a mild form of autism called Asperger's syndrome, that's why I'm such a spaz"? Inquiring minds want to know. I think that many employers won't hire you because you're an idiot.
Now, I am missing my left leg below the knee as a result of a motorcycle accident. If I'm not wearing my prostheses it's pretty obvious that I'm different from regular people because I'm on crutches and well, because, well because I don't have a fucking left foot any more! This isn't like Asperger's, it's right out there and the only way you could miss it is if you were blind. It's not like people are sitting there and saying "Gee, there's something a little bit different about that guy".
Now, I've interviewed for four jobs since my accident and I did three of those interviews on crutches and without a prostheses becau
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
No? Why not? I know a lot of legitimate male+female marriages that don't live up to the ideal, do you not count those as marriages? If the two chix are deeply devoted to each other and spend the rest of their lives together (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health...), that's not a marriage?
Right, so why are gays so hung up on "marriage" instead of equivalent rights?
Well, if it was possiable to get equal rights in any other way, then it probably wouldn't be the issue it is. Separate but equal has been tried, and it failed pretty miserably. It varies from state to state, but there are still huge differences between marriages and civil unions. As long as the wording is different, they can be treated differently.
But you're right that the word does convey legitimacy. It is a loaded word, that is why the issue is so hot.
So first I say that wording doesn't matter, and then I say that it does. Well, what I said is that bent wording doesn't matter. Calling something the PATRIOT act doesn't make it patriotic. Calling something the Defense of Marriage Act doesn't mean it does. On the other hand, where there is a difference in wording, it is all to easy to have a difference in fact. That is why "civil union" will never be equal to "marriage".
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right (Score:5, Insightful)
San Francisco said otherwise. Uh oh, cognitive dissonance time. It's like that robot from star trek. "ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL! DOES NOT COMPUTE!"
I wasn't going to get nearly this snarky until I saw that I was arguing against the same old soft-pedalled bigotry. Well I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to stand for hemming and hawing while injustice takes place. People are losing their homes because the inheritance goes to parents. People are losing their health because their partner can't insure them. And on and on, because people like YOU will gladly crush others so you can enjoy your precious definitions.
Re:Bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You're taking irony literally. Allow me to help (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another reason (Score:5, Insightful)
1. What the hell does marriage have to do with evolution?! Do you honestly believe that the only way people can breed is if they get married? Answer me this, Bill and Bob get married, how, in your mind, does this magically enable them to pass thier genes on - does one of them suddenly grow a uterous?!
2. Explain homosexuality in any of the other species that exhibit it. You know your argument that evolution says that homosexuality cannot exist in nature? Well, I just contradticted it.
3. Who the hell are you to tell somebody else, who you have never met, who will probably never meet you, who will have zero impact on you, who they may or may not become legally bound to with all the rights and privileges associated with that.
Look, sexuality is not a genetic thing, it's not a learned thing, it's just a specific setting on a scale for each individual.
Some of us are heavily pegged towards the hetero end, some of us towards the homo end, most of us are on the hetero side of the center, a few more on the homo side of the center and a handful of us are smack bang in the middle.
It's not something to be changed, it's just diversity in action.
I don't think anybody can seriously say that that are 100% hetero or 100% homo, our species is not built that way - we need human contact and at the end of the day it doesn't matter which gender.
As for the marriage debate - GET RID OF THE RELIGION and everything becomes simple, gay people and straight people deserve to have the same legal rights, privileges and processes available to them, marriage included.
With Rehtoric Like this... (Score:1, Insightful)
"And now, suddenly, because ONE ANTI-GAY ACTIVIST COMPLAINED, they've suddenly changed their minds ON A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE."
News Flash: Being homosexual is not an unchangeable physical characteristic. It is a desire and a way of thinking which may or may not be linked to genetics. We do not know conclusively yet. Linking this with the Civil rights movment cheapens the real threat and loss of life in that movement and drives away the person looking for serious dialog. Also, unlike race and color, you have to get to know someone to realize they are gay.
Perhaps second in importance (behind this offensive cheaping of the Civil Rights Movement) is that your sexuality, hetero or homo has zero place at work. Zero. None. If you walk in the office and show, "Strait Pride," or "Gays Represent," you are harassing others around you and can be charged with intimidation and threatening and, depending on how good your lawer is, sexual harassment.
I have no problem with people who are homosexual but I do have a problem when they insist on being celebrated by others. I think it's a "sin" (oh no, Bible word, turn off critical reading part of brain) and I refuse to submit to any part of the "Homosexual Adgenda" which I find nothing short of trying to normalize a behavior that we all should tolerate but most of us do not approve of. Let me say that again, a behaviour. You can't see homosexuality. Next thing you know we will be sueing for Civil Rights for Mets fans because of hate crimes in the Bronx by the Yankee Fans.
Now, having spoken apart from herd, treat me like you do all dissenters. You know the drill, you tollerant, thinking folks. Tolerance for every view but mine.
Re:Another reason (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Think of lawsuit prevention (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not out of control because you told a rambling and pointless anecdote.
I rather doubt that anyone could get $1.3M from a Fortune 500 legal department simply for being hispanic. Either there was substantial evidence of discrimination, or (more likely) this chick had some very good dirt on someone up high.
Re:Think of lawsuit prevention (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is the director backed up every allegation so he could get some of the settlement. F*ckin prick.
But yes the story is %100 true and the name of the company is FedEx.
They are appealing the case and because the director gave nothing but high performance reviews for the secretary so it showed there was no evidence to fire her. It must be because she was hispanic right?
But lawsuits are very common in any corporation and yes they are out of control. Walmart has something like 250+ lawsuits agaisnt it at the moment and most of them deal with labor issues from inside the company.
I have seen workers who were fired outright for poor performance and not showing up for work only to complain to HR for sexual harrasment so they get rehired. Sadly it works.
I work at Busch Gardens right now in the traffic department and I see lawsuits occur almost on a weekly basis for all sorts of silly things. For example someone crosses the street outside the park and ignores the signs for the park entrance and gets hit by a car. Its the parks fault pay me a million dollars. Or someone hits another car in the parking lot. Oh, its not the drivers fault who happens to be using a cell phone and drinking a beer while leaving. Its the parks fault because someone needs to be in each parking lane observing and controlling traffic. That prick won the case too and cut our whole budget and we had to fire... you guessed... traffic controllers so the park is now less safe. Pay me money. Funny I do not see trafic controllers at the local grocery store lot soley to prevent collisions? Why here?
I mean where does it end?
Even if a lawsuit is not likely most hope for a chance for another chance at the job or hope for a settlement.
Wow.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm Christian, i'm male, i'm straight, i'm black, i'm American. I don't give a shit if two males or two females want to marry. Not my business and if god has a problem with it. Let god do the judging, i'm too busy trying to survive.
What really gets me is that regardless of religion. If you can't follow the simple commandments and rationalize them on the basis of your own ideology. How fucking faithful and true to your religion are you? "Love thy neighbhor? Yeah.. only if they aren't gay."
You fucking hypocrites, the same book you live by talks about people like you. The same book talks about praising false idols (ie: the pope). I mean, even before the new ones burial plot could sink people are already over their mourning and cheering a new pope and for what?! Religious leadership? You need a leader to talk to your god, to steer you to holiness?
You "religious" people disgust me. Stop walking around in the dark or you'll be left in the dark. How about you all take a minute and re-read the bible? Any bible, any religion. You don't have to get far to see the message.
Treat people the way you want to be treated, love thy neighbor.. You don't need a church, wherever two or more gather. I'll be there.
I mean jesus christ.. seriously.. JESUS CHRIST.. help these people.
Re:You already have! (Score:2, Insightful)
The word "atheism" itself tells you that.
"A" means "without," and "theism" means a belief in a higher power.
Re:This is fine with me (Score:4, Insightful)
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
Well, that's what one particular translation into English says. The King James edition says:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
The English Standard Version translation says:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That word that the KJ edition translates as effeminate, and that your ediition gives as homosexuals, and that the ESV gives as "men who practice homosexuality" is the greek word malakos, which refers to boys who served as live-in prostitutes for wealthy men (who usually had wives). Basically, boys kept purely for sexual purposes. The word your edition has translated as sodomite actually meant a male temple prostitute.
In other words, saying that 1 Cor 9 condemns homosexuality is about as ridiculous as saying that it condemns hererosexuality because it condemns adultry. All it actually condems is homosexuality in the context of certain kinds of prostitution.
Question: if you actually believe the Bible, why don't you think it is important enough to actually read in the original language? It always puzzles me that people can believe that this book records the actual will of God, but not care enough to want to discover what it says.
Re:NO Marraige should be government approved. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which country do you live in? It can't be the US, because most of it's founders were Deists, not Christians. Religious morals should not be laws, sins should not be crimes. Obviously actions harmful to another, like murder, rape, theft, etc should be illegal. But there are many laws in this country that are purely Christian in origin. The anti sodomy laws, for instance. Why should it be illegal in 48 states for one consenting adult to perform oral sex on another?
I agree that the government has no business regulating marriage. They should neither ban marriage, nor enforce it. Churches should not be prevented from marrying two or more gay people, not should they force churches to marry two (or more) gay people.
The government shouldn't even be preventing bigamy. This doesn't mean I condone the practice of coercing women to marry the way some hard-line Mormons do. But marriage, and sexuality, are personal choices and what two (or more) freely consenting adults do is not the governments business.
I think I like your idea of getting the government out of the marriage business entirely. But I think you are very wrong about the separation of church and state being only one way. That leaves too much room for one religion to force it's beliefs on others. It allows an attitude of "You can whatever god you want but you have to follow my god's rules", and that's not true freedom of religion.
Don't tell me I'm a victim if a girl gives me a BJ, because I certainly don't think I'm a victim (I think I'm damn lucky). Without a victim there should be no crime.
TommyRe:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
It ISN'T about hating Christians, it is disapproving of actions of those that would inflict THEIR world view - "How things should be" on others. I am absolutely cool with anyone of any religion even though I disagree with the very concept of organized religion. This is simply because MY view is just another view and just as valid.
Any public policy should be unbiased in all ways including religion or you affect the freedoms of those that believe otherwise. Good policy is devoid of any influence except those of the public. Some of the public is gay and wants to marry another gay person, some are Christians and feel homosexualality is a sin - and most of the public just simply doesn't care as long as you don't mess with them.
Christians like to do things that are ONLY rational if you believe in their religion.
If I told you that religion is bullshit. The bible is just mothergoose written by unsophisticated cultists long, long ago and that we have much more plausible answers now so now it is illegal to do unnatural things like believing in a "Holy Ghost" or empty morality and I am going to ammend the constitution to reflect the removal of your right to practice Christanity - you would hate non-Christians wouldn't you?
Oh wait...
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
No they arnt. If you think that "lot[s] of girls are just as turned on by ..." then you must have been exposed to an extremely untypical group of women.
Bwahahahaha! Please, look up "slash fanfiction" on Google.
I think that's a sufficiently large number to be called "a lot".
Re:Wow.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care about all the other "lessons" or stories, morals, etc. They are entirely irrelevant to live what I believe is virtuous and righteous lifestyle.
Contradiction would be believing in what I believe and fleeing from that belief when it becomes tested. I'm not one of those people. The bible may be a stupid fucking book but my faith isn't in a book.
That is the whole point.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
>why you think you have the right to "share" with me what you think of my "lifestyle," unless I've specifically asked you to do so.
I couldn't care less laws for (group name) except for:
a. I shouldn't be forced in the workforce to go through sensitivity training towards ____ (insert your group, race, religion) when my demographic receives no such preferential treatment.
b. No special extra rights should be granted to any group. In other words, do not discriminate aganst everyone else. This means that group X can not have a special government office while other groups do not. For example, if there is a congressional woman's office, then there must be a congressional men's office or better yet have not special demographic group office at all.
This has led the USA down the noneding path of identifying each and every demographic group and then having a protracted battle as to if and what should be done to add specific laws, regulations, government offices, etc for that group.
Re:Companies are private organizations (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming that people who think like you are the only ones capable of determining right and wrong is very prejudiced and close-minded.
Except that while I might be right or wrong, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything because of my beliefs, while people who want to pass legislation against homosexuality are trying to do just that, make moral decisions for others (something you may have notices Jesus specifically mentions a few times as an immoral thing.)
You have got to be kidding me. Logically that doesn't demonstrate anything. But I bet it sounded cool in you head, right?
Well cooler than "cool in you head." Not go read the previous threads so that you can understand what I was talking about.
homosexuality, beastiality and pedophilia all come down to having sex with something that is not natural
Try reading sometime. You will quickly learn that animals have homosexual relations in many different species. It sounds pretty "natural" to me.
People also consent to be shot in the head and fed poison from time to time too.
If someone wants to shoot themselves in the head, or have a friend do it, or eat poison, who are you to force them not to? Are you god to tell others what is right and wrong? No. You're not. So butt out any worry about your own actions.
he could actually earnestly believe that it is wrong
What makes you think these two things are mutually exclusive? Lots of gay people think that homosexuality is wrong. Statistically, most become catholics and continue to have sex with members of the same sex and feel guilty about it.
I need to keep reminding myself that you are right and just about everyone else is wrong.
No just remind yourself that you don't know what is right and wrong and that you are fallible. Then leave everyone else alone to do what they think is right.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:To Reply To All Of You (Score:3, Insightful)
Two brothers, roughly born the same time. One is gay one is straight. I guess mom had a greater influence on the gay one right? Prove that its nurture and not nature? What about the rough and tough dad who raises his son to be a ladies-man, only to find out one day that his son is gay? What about the gay parents who raise a straight child?
For me to say "I am white" it is easy to look at my skin and make that judgement
I had a friend in HS. I thought he was white. His skin was white, he had blue eyes, brown hair, a white persons facial features - did not look african american. His mom and dad are black. People look at me and say I am white...I am middle eastern which is Asian. Physical appearance is not a needed qualifier of what you are.
So you have your conundrum, you want your choice to be true to the extent you feel this is a civil rights issue and that your rights are being denied
Can two men go to any court townhouse in this country and say "I want to marry my lover, who is also a man."? Nope. They cannot - it's a civil rights issue. A person does not have to prove they are gay by some genetic testing, they just have to live the life and that is proof enough. A straight guy is not going to have sex with men unless he is gay (or bi-sexual)
Christianity at this point, though I consider it a choice of the environment I was raised in.
That is called being raised by "nurture".
You are obviously not going to listen to what I have to say. Keep believing that a person chooses to be gay, keep believing that there is no civil rights issues - that gay people are treated just the same as everyone else. It is really a shame though that you think that. It does not matter if oyu think it is a persons choice or not a persons choice - if a person is gay they have less rights then if they were straight. There cannot be an argument about that - and if you choose to do so then you are very very very blind to what is going on in our country and the world.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
EVEN IF the founders believed they were founding a "Christian" country (and I don't believe they thought they were), the people involved had much milder, often deistic, interpretations of Christianity. How else do you reconcile this with, for example, the prevalence of Freemasonry among the founders?
Yes, as figures of the 18th century, they used terms like "Divine Providence" but they also used symbolism like that on the back of the dollar bill, and were deliberately working against the traditional monarchial and ecclesiastical order. The most religious people in the country tended to be Tories, who generally fled in terror, rather than participate in or fall victim to the Revolution.
Everyone Is Missing The Point... (Score:3, Insightful)
We actually talk about how important it is that a COMPANY endorse legislation. We don't talk about how many Americans agree or disagree - but which companies are supporting the resolution or the people behind it.
This is wrong. And it's wrong to treat LGBT as second-class citizens, which is what we're doing. It's funny how conservatives harp about "moral values," yet they seem to be pretty selective on which moral values they consider worthy of discuss. It's their buzzword - and it's pathetic.