Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Abandons Gay Rights Bill
andrewagill writes "Microsoft has withdrawn support from a bill that would "protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual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."
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary security holes in their products.
Seriously, though, this is a MAJOR issue...Microsoft withdraws its support on a subject it's been championing for years, becuse of threats from one rabidly evangelistic, gay-hating preacher??? Just what exactly does Ken Hutcherson have on Bill anyway? For the life of me, I don't understand why Bill didn't just tell him to fuck off. He should have ordered that Ken be dragged out back and shot (fun fact: it's legal for him to do that in Redmond). But no...he just caves, despite the fact that Microsoft owns the consumer market, and Ken's followers could no longer 'boycott' the use of Microsoft's products than they could 'boycott' the use of oxygen.
I almost feel sorry for Microsoft. Almost.
It's going to be interesting to see how Microsoft wriggles out of this one...although I would have much rather they called Ken's bluff...the 'boycott' would have been even more interesting to watch.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
And I don't mean in the homosexual way... but in the bad at sports way.
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.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Anyone else read this as Microsoft Abandons Gay Bill?
...come before social interests? Nah. Couldn't be.
Windows is still gay.
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.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
...Mac OS X as a threat (rightly, in my opinion), so they are now attacking the problem at the source.
Gay is not a race, its not like you have to tell all your employees your sexual orientation.
Odds are dropping support for this bill was necessary to get support for a bill they really want passed (anti-open source, take over the world, etc.).
What bothers me is that one corporate entity seemingly has so much influence over the legislative process. Specifically, a law that is totally unrelated to their industry.
I understand the RIAA/MPAA and Copyright legislation, but Microsoft and Gay Rights? WTF?
Now, instead of "Write Your Congressman!" are we supposed to call MS Tech Support?
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
People can be right assholes about this. Having been told to my face by my manager "look, we'd really love to keep you on but I'm afraid there's no legal protection to you if we fire you over your homosexuality, so we're forced to let you go. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there's ANYTHING we can do for you."
And you thought Microsoft were the kings of doublespeak & twisted convoluted logic.
Unfortunately, legal protections can only go so far. If someone wants to fire an employee because they don't like the employee's partner, then they'll find a reason quickly enough.
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.
The full article can be found here:l
http://www.thestranger.com/2005-04-21/feature.htm
Gay bashing is now a socially acceptable form of discrimination in this country. See also: Texas to ban gays from being foster parents.
If GLBT people are not protected from discrimination there would be no porn on the internet to corrupt our children.
Yeah, Right.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
I'm not sure I understand how a corporations support, or lack there of, for social political issues is relevant..
I suppose this is analogous to Henry Ford's philosophy for why he paid his workers well, in some respects, but Henry Ford didn't throw his weight behind legislation and bills for workers, did he?
i think seperation of corporation from government is more important than the seperation of church and state in some respects. Who cares what bills or legislation they do or don't support. I think a company's best influence on society can be made through their own internal HR and resource practices..
i don't know, seems a bit silly to me.
okay.... i'll ask....
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...*
Perhaps they figure that since they own such a substantial amount of the market in software, they can afford to piss off a few more people. Meantime, I'll continue to happily use Firefox and perhaps consider Linux for my next operating system.
Do not disturb. Already disturbed. http://www.teaaddictedgeek.com
There is no excuse for discrimination against gays. Microsoft of all companies should know that.
sulli
RTFJ.
I guess Bill was pissed about all those rainbow Apple stickers from the 80's showing up on his car.
As a young, gay, male geek... The second that anything Microsoft does has a significant impact on gay rights, I'm moving to Holland.
With all the ignorance in government on this side of the pond, the last thing we need is our Software Overloads making some form of impact (good OR bad).
Why doesn't Bill stick to software. Yeesh. Next headline: "General Motors supports rights of grape pickers in Southeastern France." Who cares??
Microsoft are making a business decision, and nothing else. At the moment the people worth keeping sides with in government, especially washington are more likely to be less favorable to gay & lesbian rights. That's not Microsoft being harsh to gays & lesbians, it's microsoft doing right to its own continued success and to that of its stockholders.
Bill Bails on Gay Bill.
The truley amazing thing about this is that MS is scared of someone. Just think about that for a second. The biggest software company in the world, with a monopoly on the desktop and office suite markets scared of someone. Anyone.
It makes one wonder if there is something rotten in Redmond.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
To listen to the commentary here, the gay community is entirely using Apple computers.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Actually, that's interesting. If Microsoft had followed through with this, would we in the FOSS, non-Microsoft using community have found ourselves flooded with a tide of anti-gay software users?
I suppose that's a silver lining to this cloud.
I didn't know corporations had anything to say over which laws are passed in parlement. I know we jest on how the government is 0wned by MegaCorps, but to see it brought as bluntly as this (on a topic that doesn't really interfere with their businessplan!!!) is a bit scary. It is possibly even more scary that not a whole lot of posters seems to notice this fact, and apparently accept that the CEO of a company can pass laws in parlement.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Can anyone actually confirm that MS pulled support of this?
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,9 79827,00.html
This sig is alpha and shouldn't be viewed on production machines
You take that back! You take that back right now! How DARE you insult homosexuals like that!
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Doesn't this strike anyone else as being rather inconsistent with Microsoft's past behavior?
I mean why would they want to enforce a competitive advantage on their competitors when they typically are so anti-competitive?
Seastead this.
This is an "Alterative" ad based weekly paper here in Seattle. In my opinion, it's journalistic integrity is slightly above the Weekly World News and roughly that of the Readers Digest.
Not to say they haven't been right in the past, but their slant is a far left leaning urban newspaper. I imagine their evidence is pretty much Microsoft withdrawing support and a pastor claiming credit.
--- If stupidity got us into this mess, why can it get us out?
You are incorrect. A bigot is by definition intolerant of the opposing point of view. Neither having an in favor stance initially, nor backing down to neutral, indicate any kind of bigotry. Their stance would have had to be radically opposed from the off.
Why can't gays start their own church? That way if someone gives them a hard time, they can claim that it is religious descrimination?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
This seems like the headline of an article from The Onion.
See also: Connecticut legalizes same-sex civil unions. Societal attitudes aren't as black-and-white as you believe.
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
I cant help but wonder if this means they will be changing that default "teletubby landscape" background that comes with windows XP for fear of association with the "outed" Tinky-Winky?
http://www.komotv.com/stories/36438.htm
Local tv says the bill has "resurrected". AFAIK this is unprecedented, in Washington when a bill is sent to committe to die (late in the session), generally, they die.
So if you support expanding protected group status to GLBT, it could be that having Microsoft abandon your cause is a good thing fwiw.
So, tell us... what test will you adminster to determine whether a couple is "normal" or not? Who gets to decide?
Feh... being gay is as abnormal as being left-handed.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
And Microsoft, since one of the largest companies, follows the trends. By offering support to religious conservatism, MS gets benefits from Bush's government, and the republicans enforce their agenta on a wider basis.
Alright I will ask it:
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
Had to happen, this has nothing to do with right/wrong and everything to do with commercialism.
It's nice that MS allows grass-roots campaigns like this to run internally, and even to run with them publicly to some extent, but as soon as a moral issue crosses paths with a financial issue...well what did you expect?
Me, I'm just impressed that MS ever even remotely stood behind this publicly.
No Comment.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If no one gets to decide, we might as well let Michael Jackson be a foster parent.
Atleast people are allowed to be gay in USA. In India a court in New Delhi declared being gay a crime punishable by law.
Gates found a code monkey harboring a blue dalmatian iMac in his office.
--- What?
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!
MS abandoning gay rights bill? Gees, that's gay.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but here's a quote from the good Pastor, during the Senate Hearing on HB1515, on March 22nd:
(He then went on to say that homosexuals want to molest young boys.)
Sorry, but with that sort of intolerance, this man has no right to call himself a servant of God.
All his parishoners should be ashamed.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Gay bashing is now a socially acceptable form of discrimination in this country.
sadly, that is all too true it seems. i personally don't have a problem with religion itself. just the ones who follow it the wrong way (IMO). and their argument is really shakey (again IMO. not meaning to insult) as their arguement is "this book says it's wrong so it is."
just about every religion agrees on the basics. the 10 commandment and such.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
That is, why is this Microsoft's battle? They make software, they don't make laws. From my understanding, that is the resposibility of the state government. So...why is this on Slashdot?
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
that windows is a Gay operating system. So does that mean that MS is now "neutral" on the acceptance of windows?
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I suppose this is analogous to Henry Ford's philosophy for why he paid his workers well, in some respects, but Henry Ford didn't throw his weight behind legislation and bills for workers, did he? More like how Henry Ford started a newspaper to publish anti-semitic crap, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Just to point out, as some probably already have:
Microsoft changed its position from favorable to neutral and after pressure from an outside source, true. But unless they say so it doesn't mean those two are connected. There are a lot of reasons they might have decided that they no longer want to be directly in support of the bill. It's kind of like you how can be against the Patriot Act without hating America, except that Microsoft isn't *against* this bill.
Religions are supposed to be preaching love, peace, and treating everyone equally under the supreme-power's eyes (God, Allah, or whoever). But look at Christianity and Islam - they've been preaching hatred all these years using the treat of "excommunication" if their followers don't comply :
A few hundreds back, both religions were preaching "crusade" - i.e. war - i.e. the LACK of peace
A few decades back, both religions were preaching against women's rights - i.e. despising femminism and female pastors - i.e. the LACK of love
Today, both religions are preaching against gay rights - i.e. discrimination on marriage, spousal benefits, and the whole 9 yards - i.e. the LACK of equality
The religious right claims the bulk of major channels to be part of the "liberal media," when in fact, the more religion they learn from church, the more hatred propaganda they spread.
As a gay person myself, I withdrew my religious faith 2 years back.
As a publically listed company isn't Microsoft required to avoid any action that could reduce shareholder value? So really they had no choice but to cave to the religious right (if that is what they did - maybe the Bill itself was flawed in some other way).
It is Microsoft's duty to support Bills that make life better for the US population because it is the right thing to do AND because some of their employees and customers may be helped by the Bill, but it is not their duty to put their company at risk.
How big's the risk? Well the oft derided Bush won a recent election on a platform that included pandering to the religious right, so there must be a sizeable sector of the US public that could be whipped into an anti-MS frenzy.
Anyway, if you guys are so bothered then a first step would be to stop making 'gay' jokes; no evil intent meant I'm sure, but they continue to make light of a sensitive area of peoples' lives.
The biggest problem with that argument is that there aren't enough people (normal or otherwise) looking to adopt kids. You might not think having a gay couple as foster parents is "normal", or even good, but you'd have a hard time convincing an informed person that growing up in an orphanage is better.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Christian-bashing was getting lonely as being the only socially acceptable form of discrimination in this country.
This is payback for Christian Coalition "navigating" Microsoft through anti-trust waters.
Second, I really don't get it why this whole issue of "rights" (read: undue privileges) for people with messed up sexual drive is considered a serious matter worth discussing and legislating about in the US. Why should it be a matter worth commenting on Slashdot? Can someone explain it in logical terms why this is important to you, preferably without name-calling and stuff like that?
And it would just about fix the entire US budget deficit. The saving on lobbyists, ex-generals recruited to armaments companies, pork barrel projects, interns required to read mail for congressmen - it would add up to a lot of money. And some of these people could be released into the community to do all the jobs we don't want to do and reduce the need for hardworking Mexicans to leave home. Though how good the average lobbyist would be at pool cleaning and auto valeting I do not know.
And it would be even better if the religious right left business alone. Left to themselves to make money, how many businesses would turn down good staff because they had unusual out of work habits?
I think there used to be something called the Constitution that had something to say on the subject before Karl and Donny and Condy told Georgie that all that human rights stuff was just so 20th century.
Phew, flamed out.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I must say this and hope that someone will answer me:
I look at Ken Hutcherson's website. He is the pastor who supposedly pressured Microsoft in pulling support. He looks middle aged and has a Church in WA. Thats all fine, but the guy is African American.
How can someone who has seen and experienced discrimination, who has been at the bitter end of it, turn around and support discrimination against a group of people who are different not because of the color of their skin, but because of the choices they made, or their genes (depends on who you ask).
This is almost like Gandhi's grand son discriminating against a british kid because he is poor,white and powerless.
Either way, it sucks and I truly wish Bill would have the balls to tell him to fuck off. Not because I resonate with gay rights, and neither because I am not religious..purely because discrimination is wrong.
Rapid Nirvana
Ok, this *is* news for nerds, and is *does* matter, but when Microsoft announced that they were backing the bill, did that make /.?
Granted, I enjoy M$ bashing too, but deciding to do *no* thing instead of the *right* thing (and you could easily make the point that this isn't something Microsoft should be involved in- I'd refute it, but you could make the point) isn't Microsoft being bad.
But seriously, did the original announcement of them backing this bill make Slashdot, or not?
I find it interesting that a story with gay/lesbian content gets press at Slashdot only when Microsoft is involved.
Come on, 10% of the Linux kernel was written by gays! (made up stat but probably true
---
I support spreading santorum
Although this is definitely a positive development, is it not very courageous just ot go to neutral. Before I'll support Windows again, I'll wait first for a complete change on number of other family rights issues.
If this is a gay list, mod me down.
P.S.: Number of times I realized that I would need a setup option kf "the lowest score first" ? Can we add that into the choices?
Petrus
Interestingly, the bill also added a non-religious definition of creed )that was not present in the original law.)
"Creed" means a system of religious beliefs and religious expressions, including moral and ethical beliefs and expressions about right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.
Isn't that interesting - one day after a new Pope is chosen, Microsoft chooses to support a more traditional definition of religion.
Seems -they- are the one promoting it...
How about a law that says nobody is protected from discrimination? That way everyone is covered equally and fairly, and nobody can complain because their particular interest group is not represented. Anything other that this is inevitably discriminatory.
I'm a supporter of rights, not not gay-rights or straight-rights,
Where I live there is gay-rights, ethnic-rights, womens-rights and I think the segmentation does more harm than good.
Gays, ethnic minorities and women don't get any more rights than anyone else, and ever growing list specific things not to discriminate against make a big joke out of the whole equal opportunitues thing:
* sex
* sexual-orientation
* religion
* ethnic-background
* country
* race (yes these last 3 are all different)
* political opinion
* social background
* sports teams you support (yes, this is a very serious sort of discrimination in some places)
* physique
* disabilities (hey, disabled people can be pretty punative to their peers who take treatment to "cure" the disability)
So when someone comes to me and wants to claim special rights under one of these categories I have to think "and whats so special about you compared with the rest of the massive long list?"
And when they start whinging for special treatment it just annoys me.
Gay rights bills will do more to harm and stir up hatred than just general "all happy together general rights bills" will.
My own view is "we don't need another law", if the ones we have don't cover the issue, what is going to make the next one work?
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Regardless of what is sufficient to be a normal environment, I tend to believe that "mother and father" is necessary. I can be persuaded the other way, though, by empirical evidence.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
As a gay man in the I.T industry, I find this news particularly disturbing. The very fact Microsoft is now retracting it's stance on GLBT rights because of some schizo jesus freak is ludicrious! That's like telling your boss to eat shit and die, expecting to come out of it still gainfully employed. Doesn't work that way. This industry is actually very accepting of gays and lesbians. IBM, SGI, RedHat, Sun, Oracle all provide same-sex benefits and have employee support systems in place for their GLBT employees. In fact, IBM is the #1 supplier of personal computers to GLBT businesses and actively supports the Human Rights Campaign. Apple is another mover and shaker in GLBT rights and was one of the first to provide same-sex benefits (Apple is just a mover and shaker period). To really find out what the the feeling is of the industry, check out the http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Search_the _Database&Template=/CustomSource/WorkNet/srch.cfm& searchtypeid=1&searchSubTypeID=1HRC's equality score card . Microsoft will come ot looking like bigoted fools in this.
100 posts in, and you still haven't given the obvious answer to this!
What does he have on Bill? Well, when the head of MS starts desperately following bizarre orders from Evangelicals, you realize he's gotta be looking for allies. My guess is, his contract is expiring soon, and he's looking for a loophole.
Now, we know Satan's contracts are even tighter than MS's, so Bill's trying to get some extra-judicial help. That's all.
--LWM
I was talking with my brother in law, who works in a car shop. Somehow the topic of VW came up, and he made an interesting comment:
We had a bit of a laugh over that - finding that one big honking exception to a stereotype can usually blow someone's bubble pretty quick.
Makes you wonder if MS doesn't realize that there's an untap market in the Gay and Lesbian community by continuing to show their support.
I guess what strikes me odd about the whole story is that for 12 years, MS has supported the Gay and Lesbian community, even winning awards for their support. They gave their support to a bill that basically says "Just like you can't discriminate against people for their gender, religion, ethnic background, or favorite M&M, you can't discriminate if they are a guy who likes to get it on with another guy, or a girl who thinks other girls are 'teh sexy'".
Then, one guy pops up, says "You know, God hates fags, and if you support this bill then we're going to tell the other Christian groups not to buy Microsoft."
As a Christian myself (yeah, not a terribly deeply practicing one - you won't see me making a birthday cake to Jesus and waiting for Him to blow out the candles on Christmas), I find the actions of Mr. Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond to be incredibly offensive, bigoted, and against everything that Christ stood for. (You know, the whole thing of "Judge not unrighteously lest ye be judged", or "I am not come to treat the well, but the sick", or "Get the hell out of my face, you damned dirty ape" - no, wait, wrong religious figure - my bad).
MS can't have it both ways. Either they support the Gay and Lesbian community, and show that there are some things more important than money - and to be honest, how many ministers are going to rise up and start buying Apple's just because MS states publicly they don't give a damn if two guys are getting hot and heavy in the bedroom? 1% of all ministers? 10%?
The loss of good faith, and a reputation of aligning themselves with people of bigoted views will probably do far more damage in the long run than "holding the course" and continuing their support of House Bill 1515.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. If nothing else, if MS doesn't stand up and do the right thing, then I guess I'll be looking for that copy of iWork instead of MS Office for my next office suite upgrade.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Murderers and rapists hurt people. Who do homosexuals hurt?
Lumping in homosexuals with murderers and rapists is obscenely lazy. It is just an excuse so you don't have to come up with anything intelligent to say about the subject. Explain why you discriminate againsts gays. And BTW, saying "because (god|the bible) says to" isn't good enough. Give an ACTUAL reason.
Technoli
Speaking as a straight parent, my wife and I ain't any more normal than our gay friends. Do my kids need less normalcy in their lives because of genetics?
What about individual gays, as opposed to couples? What if they're still in the closet? What if they don't know they're gay yet? Where do you draw the line?
Foster kids shouldn't be placed in dysfunctional homes. Can we agree on that? Gay couples living in San Francisco aren't likely to be seen as all that abnormal.
Do you know many gay couples? I've heard the same arguments made against blacks by old white guys who only know about blacks by watching cops. There's a big world out there. You don't have to like it, but if you get to tell everyone else how to live, don't complain when they start telling you how to live.
Sounds OT, but it's not. With the laws that are being thrown around it's amazing that anyone has any personal rights anymore. Then if the judiciary stands up for individuals rights, you have someone like DeLay screaming about it! Hypocracy. Anyway, if you're insterested in things like MS's move, read http://hrc.org for more info. bo
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
Have you ever read any of the Linux source code? Something tells me the religous right would not be down with a custom catered linux distro.
Paranoid tinfoil hat crowd say Y here, everyone else say N.
I am very confused. We live in a country that is running up a huge debt and fighting a war, but the politicians have time to push their selective religious beliefs. The entire country was mobilized for the Florida death watch, while no one cared about Sun Hudson. Sun Hudson was an infant in Texas who had his life support pulled against his mother's wishes. The "culture of life" president signed the bill that killed Sun Hudson while he was governor of Texas. I wish these politicians would read about usury and shellfish in the Bible. I am really tired of credit card companies and people who eat shellfish.
Back to the gay thing, I thought Bush got a mandate during the last errect...err..election.
Laws like this are silly. Is there discrimination against GLBT persons? Sure. But the majority is based on business necessity. I guarantee you, if a GLBT person would help the company more than a straight person, they would be hired. Thats why we see so many gay males at salons and high fashion clothing stores. But to require that a man who likes to dress up like a woman be viewed no differently from a normal man or woman is asking too much. I, for one, don't want to talk to a man in a dress who works at a restaurant.
I should have said "Cops" - referring to the TV show.
Just because one paranoid pro-gay publication claims that a single pastor threatened Microsoft to withdraw their position, that it MUST be true?!?! Could this possibly be the explanation?
Just as important, since when is it the business of a software development company to be pushing legislation on a social issue?!?! Should we now attack IBM, HP, Dell, GM, Walmart, Citicorp, etc. because they are not flaming supporters of pro-gay legislation which can then later bite them in the ass with civil suits?
I am looking at the posts, and it appears you are not alone in your retardation. Take comfort in that.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Excuse me, how does your rant about gayness differ from religion (except that same-sex attraction is NOT a choice, and I'm not that sure about religious beliefs)?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
You care about how your parents have sex?! You're one sick bastard!
Gay bashing is now a socially acceptable form of discrimination in this country.
How is it bashing to maintain the status quo that has existed for a few hundred years? You attempt to make it sound like gays had equal rights until Bush was elected. The fact is that gays have more rights now than they had when he was first elected. Look at the number of states finding some way to grant legal marriage rights to gay couples. Look at the laws passed to allow gay adoption. As for acceptance, is it legal in Hollywood to make a movie or television show without a gay character? OK, that's a cheap joke. I can't be serious for a whole paragraph.
Keep your eye out for anyone on the extremes. You mention the Texas ban on gay foster parents. Gays are using a loophole in the foster parent laws to become foster parents. Some legislators in Texas want to close the loophole. By definition, a loophole is 'legal' but not 'as intended by the law'. So, the main issue is that the gays in Texas need to stop using a loophole and pass a real law allowing them to be foster parents - or complain that they are being bashed and hope someone else will come fix everything for them.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
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:
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.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
On what grounds? Have you seen the shirts that say "god hates shell-fish"? One of the cultural studies profs at my school wears one. Apparently it's mentioned that god despises shrimp 5 times more then god hates gays (can't confirm this at this moment). The thing that I tend to notice about fundamentalism and literal readings of the bible is that it is a very selective approach (in reality IMHO to justify cultural norms which is what culture has always done). It seems to me that if such a reading of the bible is going to happen then said Christians should be up in arms about a lot more then simply gay people. Never mind the senseless killing of a whole lot of people outside of North America. Think of all the sinning sea-food lovers and other literal readings of the bible that are going un-practiced. my two cents, Mike
...micro and soft becomes an expert in sexuality?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Who would really want thousands of Evangelical Christians switching over to Linux anyways? I don't want to use a mail client called "Creationism."
Interestingly, the bill also added a non-religious definition of creed )that was not present in the original law.)
This is the changed text:
"Creed" means a system of religious beliefs and religious expressions, including moral and ethical beliefs and expressions about right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.
Isn't that interesting - one day after a new Pope is chosen, Microsoft chooses to support a more traditional definition of religion.
Why is there a bill to add sexual practices to something that already bars discrimination? Just because somebody prefers to do members of their same gender doesn't mean they are not human and are therefore stripped of their rights. If they are citizens, they already have these rights, regardless of who they boink. If laws against discrimination are already there, what's the point?
Go ahead and flame if you must. Since I didn't read the article, or even some of the other posts, I may be talking about something else entirely.
BDR Gear
Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
(For dim witted bible bashers out there, the above is what is known as "not really true")
It's a funny joke, har har har. Reality is, though, that's what most ignorant Slashdotters think of Christians. But secular technozealots know as much about us as hermit Pennsylvania Amish know about the innards of the Linux kernel.
Reality is, we believers in Christ aren't all Bush loving TV evangelists out to get your money, out to smack you with our Bibles, or kill gays because it's "God's work". If that's what you see Christians as, then it's sad you've been exposed to the worst of our bunch.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
It's also the same consumer market that legalised same-sex marriage in several states and a number of nations.
Actually, it's well established that many creatures in the world engage in homosexual sex quite frequently. Dolphins will have sex with other male dolphins' blowholes, and many primates apparently have sex to celebrate finding large quantities of food.
Besides, just because nothing else does it isn't really much of an excuse. Human are an aberration in many ways. I don't know many ocelots that post on slashdot, or doves that program computers. Don't use animals as any sort of excuse or explanation. Humans are different in many ways.
Like the current system is so great? See: Grand jury said to probe death of boy [in State foster care].
My best friend's sister and her partner have been together for 20 years now. They're well adjusted and fincially well off, achived through a lot of hard work. Since they live in the great state of MA they are now legally married.
There is no scientific reason not to allow them to adopt and be foster parents. Too many good homes that could really help out a difficult problem if it wasn't for a small group of christain bigots.
I see no evidence of gay bashing on Bush's part.
He wants to admend the US Constituion, a document that protects rights and use it to restrict them. That's bashing them in my book, just with nicer words.
Someone please answer this question: without bringing in an unseen "high power" can you still say same sex couples should not be married? Imposing a religous doctine on a minority ("Gays are sinner and evil") is not what our Founder Father had in mind.
Let them marry so they can see wild ride of marriage is like. IMO they'd make
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Very good point. I will listen to the fundamentalists when they follow a kosher diet. But I don't see Lou Sheldon et al. laying off the BBQ.
sulli
RTFJ.
It's one thing to be homophobic. Even with my attitudes I sometimes get nervous in large groups of homosexuals, but for me it's just because I find it more awkward turning down propositions for sex from people I would never poke than people I might.
I am not a hate monger. I don't advocate hate of bigots. On the other hand, I think we'd all be better off without them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
On what grounds?
Have you seen the shirts that say "god hates shell-fish"? One of the cultural studies profs at my school wears one.
Apparently it's mentioned in the bible that god despises shrimp 5 times more then god hates gays (can't confirm this at this moment).
The thing that I tend to notice about fundamentalism and literal readings of the bible is that it is a very selective approach (IMHO used unconsciously to justify cultural norms - which is what culture has always done).
It seems to me that if such a reading of the bible is going to happen then said Christians should be up in arms about a lot more then simply gay people.(which to some degree I suppose they are)
Never mind the senseless killing of a whole lot of people outside of North America. Think of all the sinning sea-food lovers and other literal readings of the bible that are going un-practiced.
Please note this is not meant to be directed at any one given individual (Christian) but, rather at those who practice what I'm talking about.
my two cents,
Mike
Thank you for reminding me why I no longer subscribe to your particular brand of superstition (Christianity).
On that basis, I think disrimination against Christians is a good thing.
How do you like it?
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
>>> I'm a Christian and I think you're a fucking dickhead.
well you're not a very GOOD christian then, are you?
Companies have no buisness lobbying for laws passed on social issues!! Since when can a software company give insightful input on matters of social law? That is something for the whole of society to decide, not big corporations.
How many states passed referendums outlawing gay marriges? And that was not done by the politicians, but was vote on by the people. I believe in some states the measure passed by over 80%, and you NEVER get that kind of support for anything.
America is becomming secular. That is wrong. Our stregnth is in our values.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I'm not sure which is more confusing, that Microsoft would champion gay rights, or that they could be pressured by a local church. Where's the connection?
No, I just believe in freedom and equal rights. Why do you hate freedom?
sulli
RTFJ.
What I do not get anymore is how the left seems to say they are progressive....yet whan anyone who was previously for their agenda makes and about face or a neutral stance, they are wrong. How is this being progressive??? At least by supporting civil unions of gays, the republicans tried to work with the groups in question. I do not go to extremes like the Catholic Church does. I heard the new Pope had stopped a nun from ministering to gays while he was a Cardinal. How does one expect to expand the flock and get new church members into the fold if your not willing to let the faithful witness to sinners?
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??
Gorkman
Well, discrimation is only the first step. Isolation is the next. Gas chambers will follow shortly.
Hail Gayts, Hail Bush
Ole!
sex is better than war!
Well, it's obvious that having a mother and a father isn't SUFFICIENT to having a good family life. Most of us come from hetero families, and a lot of us had screwed up childhoods.
The big difference with Gay parents is that you're pretty much guaranteed that they wanted the child in their lives in the first place. It's easy for a couple to 'accidentally' have a child, and not really be very interested, prepared or capable of raising the child. With an adoptive family, they at least do a cursory check to see that you're qualified.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What kind of empirical evidence are you looking for? (Will this do?) What are you referring to when you say "normal environment"?
Is being brought up by your grandmother ok with you? How about being brought up by your grandmother and her girlfriend?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
You are missing the point of discrimination. It doesn't matter if there are certain requirements for some religiouns all members of all faiths have equal protection from discrimination based on their choice of faith. How do you think those people would feel if you told them that they had to hide thier faith in order to be not discriminated against. It's not like gay people are asking for the right to participate in gay pride events. They are asking to have their job qualification based upon their skill as an employee and not upon their sexual oreintation.
To your last point, i have a gay friend who simply can't hide the fact that he is gay. He tries to and fails misserably and gets exteremly embarrased when people point out his flamboyant nature.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Generalizing about a group from the actions of its angriest and most vitriolic members is profoundly intolerant. I'd expect a homosexual to know better, you fucking bigot.
What about being able to talk about your significant other in the workplace, just like the heteros do?
what about if your significant other is in the hospital and you need the day off to visit him/her, just like the heteros do?
What if your co-workers make fun of you for having a picture of your partner on your desk, just like the heteros do?
I could go on, but I hope you get the point.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Everyone is entitled to making their own choices, but that doesn't mean everyone else should agree with them.
diegoT
As for making you shave, find some chicks who like real men, not men who look like women. To be fair, women who look more like men have been the style for some time. This is loosely tied to economic health. In boom times the tendency is to look for slender women, who are better "play" partners because they are athletic. During a downturn, the tendency is to look for a provider figure, which means having some meat, wide hips, large breasts. I've always liked the reubenesque figure anyway, so I notice this sort of thing, and thank heaven big hoo-has are coming back into style.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This scenario plays out over and over again. Humans are fundamentally hateful and intolerant. Being gay, female, transexual, a member of a racial, cultural, or religious minority, or whatever doesn't matter -- the hate is still there. Minorities are just as monstrous as anyone else, often more so because intolerance is all they've known of life.
Microsoft continues to be a huge supporter of gay rights. Withdrawing support from one piece of legislation (there's no reason they should have been involved in it in the first place and they are not opposing it, they are just withdrawing from the battle) does not suddenly make them "supporters of religious conservativism". They are a business. If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, has the potential to cause them to lose a large amount of their business, it's the responsible thing to do to not let that happen.
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.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Denying rights to homosexuals is not the same as not agreeing with their choices. It's treating them like second-class citizens because of who they are and what they do. This has been institutionalized in our country, with the idea that marriage is between a woman and a man. Know where that idea came from? The Romans. That's right, the western notion of marriage descends ENTIRELY from greco-roman ceremonies, accompanied by legal documents, which were primarily concerned with the assignment of property rights. Marriage is not about togetherness or family, it's about dowry, child support, paternity, and alimony. You can be together and raise a family without being married; marriage is about financial arrangement, and people the world over (but especially the western world over) have been tricked into thinking it's about love. It's even funnier how people fall for this diamond ring shit, which was sold to them by DeBeers. Fucking sheeple.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How many people think this is an accurately researched and reported story?
If so, have you completed a college education? What is the name of that institution that would give you a bachelor's degree?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Has anyone actually RTFA?
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?
As if we didn't already have enough to worry about w.r.t. the quality of sex education in this country...
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"Hello, you are a bigot. Most of the homosexuals I know who would consider raising children are considerably better people than, well, than I suspect you are given what you just said about them."
And we should also support the right of gay couples to have clones!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
How about every accredited study that's ever been done on the issue? That enough empirical evidence for you?
"I call a baby goat a 'goatse.'" -- my non-Internet-savvy 6-year-old stepdaughter
Guess, that's a reaction to the high taxes in San Francisco?
Did anyone read this like a tabloid line: Microsoft abandons Bill Gates because hes pro-gay-rights?
I think most of Europe has gay-rights discrimination laws but we're just a bunch of stoners and drunks...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I'm talking about Microsoft of course.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
The Bible says all that stuff.
It was written by a bunch of old men 2500 years ago in a desert halfway around the world. The books in it got there via a vote of 568 to 563 at the Council of Trent in 397 - those that weren't politically favourable were dropped.
Now, if you have some actual evidence that the Bible is the word of God, by all means provide it.
Until then it has about as much of a chance of being the word of God as the Koran, the Bhagvangita, or "The Stand" by Stephen King.
Just in case you were wondering...
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
There's also extortion, as in "if we're not kept happy, we may need to move our office to Mexico/India/Wherever".
If homosexuality is so unnatural, then why is it found in nature? Homosexual behavior can be found in nearly all warm-blooded species.
Technoli
While it's obvious they are caving to poltical pressure in this case, it IS reasonable for companies to have policies that guide if and how they stand on social issues. It's also reasonable to revisit these policies from time to time.
Notwithstanding any change to its "how do we address social issues" policies, it's tacky to change horses mid-stream. If indeed MS is revisiting how it takes a stand on social policies, as opposed to just using that as an excuse, the wise thing to do would be to have a moratorium on any NEW actions until the new policy was in place, then revisit existing social policy statements and positions.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
Actually, that just made me think of a way that homosexuality could be a desired trait in terms of a species, since clearly in itself it does not particularly lend itself to being passed on. Of course, we're still not sure if homosexuality has a genetic basis, and if it does, how to explain bisexuals or people who flip-flop at some point in life (in preference that is, not practice. The latter is easily explainable.) When you have an imbalance of gender, it might be best to have homosexuals in your population so they have something to do other than pointlessly compete with other members of the species.
Of course, in animals rut takes over and they (generally) will breed regardless of preference. That isn't necessarily true of humans, although the less-understood aspects of human attraction can still take control there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And here I thought all this editorial trolling by the /. powers that be would end after the election. Silly me.
To bad we can't mod the stories themselves.
You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
I wonder how many of Microsoft's competitors have taken sides on issues like this, and which sides they have taken.
Apple is liberal. Anyone know if they take sides on legislation?
IBM, a Linux proponent, offers domestic partnership benefits but I'm not sure if they take sides on proposed legislation.
Anyone know about Novell/SuSE? Novell is in Utah, bastion of conservatism, but SuSE is in Germany, which is socially more liberal than the USA.
How about Red Hat?
SCO's irrelevant as a MS competitor, but it's also in Utah.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Right? Doesn't that follow from your logic?
Seastead this.
first they cant have childern naturally.
Neither can a lot of straight couples. If a guy is impotent, does that make him unnatural and/or sinful? Should we make it legal to fire people for being infertile, or to evict them from their homes? If a marriage turns out to not produce children, and it turns out the minister knew they were infertile, should he or she be tracked down and arrested for falsely marrying the couple? (After the marriage is declared null and invalid, obviously.)
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
Gays etc are normal people. It's bigots like you that need to change.
...
/. is a largly fascist area now, things do become their opposite given sufficient time.
There are laws to protect you from people who hate fishing
PenGun
Yes
What about fellatio?
Because.... you do know not all gays are into sodomy.
What about masturbation?
Because.... you do know not all gays are into fellatio.
What about kissing?
Because.... you do know not all gays are into maturbation.
What about holding hands?
Because.... you do know not all gays are into kissing.
Catch my drift?
The demographic least likely to contract AIDS or HIV?
Lesbians.
So, what was that you were saying about Homosexuality being the main cause of AIDS?
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
That's because it's not genetic. Experiments like Simon LeVay's have determined that a major cause is physical, resulting from conditions in the mother's womb. Development of the brain depends on those conditions, and certain physiological development causes homosexual behaviour.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
People are still busy bitching over the election and the one before it.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
"Atleast people are allowed to be gay in USA."
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.
Girl + Girl = good (its perfectly natural)
See that was the part of the post where you were supposed to infer that they were joking.
I believe that he was pointing out the irony that many times, men who speak bad about gay (guy + guy) sex are the same guys who grab a porno or penthouse featuring lesbian (girl + girl) scenes, to which they have no objection.
Since text doesn't convey emotion or emphasis very well, I find it helpful to reread a post a few times before replying.
If I'm wrong and the grandparent was serious, then that same line I just cited proves my point anyway.
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
You sir, are the kind of Christian that the world needs more of. ;)
Technoli
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.
Depending on who you ask, sexuality is either inborn, like eye color, or a choice, like religion.
While eye color is not a protected status, if there had been a long and widespread pattern of unfair discrimination based on eye color, it should and probably would have special status as a protected class, like race and for some things, gender.
Religious preference by and large is protected by law.
The bottom line answer to your question:
Where current laws are adequate to neutralize unfair discrimination, no new laws are needed.
Where current laws are INadequate to neutralize unfair discrimination, and where the right to engage in unfair discrimination is not itself protected - such as in a religious setting - new laws are not unreasonable and if done correctly are A Good Thing.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Are you joking or are you really that ignorant?
No one's making you "embrace homosexuality." Bills like this are an attempt to curb discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation, not make you want to go out and party with them.
Why can't Black people just embrace the fact that they're black and accept the good and bad that goes along with it? How about Asians, Latinos, and women, too? They should all just suck it up and deal with prejudice, right?
I can't get over ignorance like this. I feel like my IQ just dropped 50 points. I guess I'm even with you, now.
Nope, that would be an African American preacher being bigoted against white people. This is more like Gandhi's descendants being bigoted against a completely different group, like Japanese saxophonists or Venezuelan college professors.
That said, the larger point you were making is well taken.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
who dumped the foster kids? straight couples.
who has 50% divorce rate in USA? straight couples.
before you talk about how gays are inappropriate to be foster parents, fix the problems of straight couples.
by the way, if YOU'RE married yourself, goodluck, you have a 50% chance of getting a divorce statistically.
ho-hum..
no queer penguins for bgates.
if all it takes is one uppety priest to get MS to change their views on something why didn't someone send one years ago and tell microsoft they were going to hell for their business practices???
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
I thought we were supposed to be against companies lobbying the government to have their way? Then this is good!
One way that a gay man can reproduce is by inserting his penis into a woman's vagina.
Similarly, one way that a lesbian woman can become pregnant is by having sex with a man.
Sorry if that's too confusing.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
In Holland a minister is not allowed to wed a couple in church before that couple has been to their city-hall where a government-official weds them solely for the law.
e y-are not" but the state and the judiciary are going to have to treat them as a married couple.
This means that any wedding must be before the civil cervant and people can choose wether or not also wed in their church. The churches can choose wether or not to allow a marriage, based on their own criteria but the state must wed gays and straights alike.
This cuts the civil responsibilities from the ministers and pastors (who should not even want them) and it cuts the religious discussion from the state's duties and the rights that state grants to married people.
As a religious person you can call a gay married couple anything you like. For example: "a-gay-couple-that-thinks-they-are-married-but-th
I see this as a very good thing.
Siggy.
This unique sig is intended to make this user more recognisable.
You could always cut your hair -- its definately not the same thing as being a minority. that you cannot change. sheesh
I mean, it's not like the Evangelical Church is going to suddenly switch to FreeBSD, what with it's Devil mascot and all!
People need to maintain work conduct appropriate for the workplace. This goes equally for both sides. I keep my personal phone calls to a minimum just like I am expected to do. And if it is unavoidable, I find a conference room or take my mobile outside -- because my private life is private. In any case, there is no special rule that my company makes that allows me to call my spouse from work. Likewise I have never heard of a special rule denying people from calling their gay partner.
As for hospital visits, it is simple to say you are visiting a close friend in the hospital. If your employer does not allow you to visit close friends in the hospital, then you need to visit your state legislation and ask them to allow gay marriage so you can visit your spouse. It would not be employer discrimination if they had a blanket policy that you were not to visit close friends hetero/homo boy/girlfriends in the hospital. If the state considered your partner as part your family, then things would be different. But as it stands, this is not discrimination in the workplace.
As for making fun of people in the workplace... For any reason, this is extremely unprofessional behavior and not cohesive to a team environment. It is your company's responsibility to prevent sexual harrassment for any reason, and I believe this qualifies.
Therefore, I stand by my conclusion that there is nothing particular about being gay that should require special protection from employers as there is about religions. There is enough legislation set up currently to protect people from harrassment.
I know this a troll; I know you don't feed trolls; I'm making this comment for posterity. And JS' posterior.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Keep fighting the good fight, man.
"It is also your choice to speak without a lisp and keep your sexual preference to yourself, just like the heteros do."
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.
As a society, we have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and a lesser responsibility to protect animals. This is why most states in the USA regulate or prohibit sex between mentally competent adults and, among others, children, mentally incompetent adults, intoxicated/drunk adults, and animals; as well as between doctors and patients, police and inmates, and others where one party is presumed to be in a vulnerable position.
In some societies, sex with underage children is acceptable
If another society in another country sees things differently that's their business. I can disagree with their laws and viewpoints but they are a sovereign nation and I have no say-so in their internal affairs.
By the way, different states in the USA look at sex with minor children differently - there's a world of difference between an 18 year old and a 14 year old vs a 48 year old and a 14 year old vs an 18 year old and a 4 year old. Many state laws recognize these differences. In some parts of the USA, 18 and 14 is actually legal.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The following are honest questions. I'd be grateful if you took the time to answer.
Keep in mind that the goal is civil marriage, rather than religious marriage. No religious figure will ever be forced to perform any marriage they don't choose to, or recognize any marriage as being legitimate in the eyes of their god. Civil marriage will simply grant gays the same thousands of rights and responsibilities under the law that straight couples have -- do you feel this pushes their beliefs on you?
Here's another question: Christians believe that a marriage should be a lifelong commitment to a single partner, for the purpose of raising children. Despite this, it is completely legal for two infertile people to get a civil marriage, have casual sex with strangers, and get a divorce a week later. Do you feel that other people's beliefs are forced on you when this happens?
Finally, since the definition of a civil union is simply a civil marriage that two men or two women may enter, under a different name, I'd like to turn your question around on you: why insist that it must be a civil union instead of a civil marriage? What is the benefit to you of calling it one instead of the other?
The only reason I can think of is to deny rights to a unioned gay couple that are granted to a married straight couple -- and that probably explains why so many gay people are looking for legal marriages rather than civil unions.
Hey, that's what you get by having majorities imposing laws on minorities. Never worked and never will.
In Canada there is the Charter of Rights And Freedoms. Especially look at #15.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
In Canada, the Supreme Court rules that the current marriage act discriminates against gay/lesbians on this basis (ie. don't have the same rights under the law). http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09 /scoc-gaymarriage041209.html
Gay marriage is already law in many provinces now, but it is be voted federally soon.
Left-handedness is actually a great analogy. Somewhat similar percentage of the populace (roughly one in eight), somewhat similar effect on one's ability to perform most jobs (none), and somewhat similar moral implications (none). And it lacks the strong feelings associated with sexuality, so it can be discussed more clearly.
So to answer your question, I'd say that if there was a frequent occurrence of people being denied employment or treated differently in the workplace because of their left-handedness, then yes, I'd be in favor of legislation making that mistreatment illegal. So far as I know, that's not the case, so chirality-equality laws are not needed.
I suppose the question that comes to my mind is how you see this as being different from the illegality of some other forms of discrimination. Do you also feel that since black people need only the same rights and protections as white people, racial discrimination laws are unecessary?
You truly are a dissembling clown.
"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.
The real issue with the homosexuality debate to me concerns what classes the government should recognize. After all, you must recognize a class before you can discriminate it. So the first question is whether or not the government should recognize sexual orientation as a class. In the (admittedly tortured) parlance of computer languages: is sexual orientation a first class... class? The problem is one of vagueness. Clearly sex (gender) and age (juvenile/adult) are first class categories. Even though they are recognized as such I'm not sure that economic status, physical ability, and race (and I'm a non-white btw) should be. On the absurd end of the spectrum I'm pretty certain that eye color and hair length, sir name, left/right-hand dexterity, etc should not be considered first class categories. Sexual orientation falls in there somewhere that continuum. To further torture the computer science analogy, to me it seems that a good government is like a good OS. The kernel (central government) should contain the bare minimum needed to run. It should recognize only natural categories and leave local governments (state, city, trade unions, etc) to sort out the rest. That's what makes for a stable government. We give the central government purview over those things that are based on sound, immutable principle and let subordinate governments handle the rest. That way if one of the lesser governments gets something very wrong, it doesn't bring down the entire system (hence true federalism is good). So, if it is the case that sexual orientation is not a first class category then we're done with the federal level. On the other hand, if it is the case that sexual orientation is a natural class, then we still have to recognize and wrestle with the fact that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are materially different. Even though we say that they can both "have sex", it is a fact of biology that only one can allow for copulation. Hence one is necessary for the continuance of society (which generally wants to persist in its existence) and the other is superfluous. For someone like me who thinks that government (at least the central one) should do the bare minimum to maintain a civil society, I can find no justification for artificially imposing any kind of parity on sexual orientation or even recognizing it at all.
I repeat:
read
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
This totally off the wall.
You know I went with my friend to pick up his marriage license today and I saw no religious symbols in the office. It was all about judges, clerks and other arms of the federal, state and local governments. The contract is between the state, the bride and groom and that is it.
So, why don't we tell these pastors to butt out of secular affairs?
Get your Unix fortune now!
Good for them.
10 years ago, gay sex was a felony in some states. Granted, these weren't age of consent laws, but they were laws nonetheless.
It wasn't until a few years ago when the Supreme Court said sex between adults was pretty much a right that those laws became invalid.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
They probably added something rediculous to the bill, so that if it passed it would allow employers to 'protect' themselves if they inquired as to the sexual status of an employee shortly before they were mysteriously terminated from their position.
Congress sucks. M$ft sucks too, but they probably had good reason to go to 'neutral' status on this..
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
If you're going to blantantly show-off your ignorance to the wilds of the inter-web and start throwing around accusations of perversions, you really need to learn how to spell it first.
1. I am not a homophobe.
You are mistaking an objective view on the subject as being anti homosexual.
Religion is protected by the constitution, I left it up to the reader to drum up support and remove it from the constitution. You can do something about this to equalize it, the best bet is to remove all choice based rights from the spectrum. This country was based on the fact as Religion being a fundemental choice that everyone would be expected to make, and stick with in some capacity or another. So it is protected. If you would like that protected status removed from religion, let me reiterate, you can drum up support in the United States and get it removed, or if it is also in your country (not US) you can simply drum up support through whatever processes are available to you to get it removed from there.
Until then, I am going to have to work from the premise that this is the only exception to rule that you do not allow a fundemental external choice to be discriminated against.
As to your beleif that homosexuality is not a choice.
1. you need to fundementally prove this. You cannot just state it to be so and then have it be true.
In the sense of skin color, gender, etc... Nothing you fundementally do will change those aspects about you, except through hiding it.
In the aspect of homosexuality you can easily say "I am gay" and then you would be a protected class. The mere assertion of it, places you in the protected class. When it comes to religion, even religions are not protected class when the religious invdividual makes a habitual nuicance of themselves, so it is not completely protected in the way that someone who has say... lost a leg is protected.
If you are asking for Homosexuality, a choice, to be protected the same as Religion, again I leave it as an excersize to the reader to do this, enjoy your uphill battle and know that you leave it open for any choice based activity to become a protected class.
Once you enter the realm of allowing a choice about something to make the determing factor of protection, you really have to worry about where that could possibly head.
NOTE:
Also, again the research issue, I do know about the twin studies done, but if you look at the research and how it was conducted, it was not conducted in a manner where the sample sizes were metered very well, and the sample pool was pulled from those pre-disposed to meet the criteria for proof of genetics in homosexuality.
For example, there has been no study where twins were asked to join, and then asked "are you gay" from all twins of a large subset, but were asked for twin pairs from magazines that would likely find groups of homosexuals reading them. Again, I do not say I am against these things, but even in that focused group where there were guarenteed matches (not scientific) the precentage was still relatively low. And to make the percentages higher, you REALLY have to play with the numbers a lot.
If you read the studies and the people that try to prove them, it becomes harder than trying to track the number of times our president has changed his reasons for tracking Iraq.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Since you hate people who hate people, and I hate people who hate people who hate people, I took the liberty to sign you up for lots of Nazi/KKK mailing lists.
:D
Enjoy.
Damn I wish I had mod points.... you are spot on. Karma be damned.
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
- In Arkansas, it must first pass both houses by a simple majority in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
- In Georgia and Mississippi, it must first pass both houses by a 2/3 vote in order for the general public to be given a chance to vote on it. It must pass the general public by a simple majority.
- In Kentucky, it must first pass both houses by a 3/5 vote, and then a simple majority in the general public.
- In Montana, it can be put in front of the general public by either passing both houses with a 2/3 vote OR a petition of 10% of the registered voters. From there, a simple majority is all that's required.
The point being is that, it varies by state. I have simplified the process somewhat (and might have inadvertently left off alternative scenarios), so for more information see Cornell's web-site on all things legal.Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Like all Christians who believe that the Bible is the truth, I think that the act of being gay/lesbian is a sin. I would oppose any legistlation that gave special recognition to gays and lesbians.
That being said, I don't think that gays and lesbians are more sinful than myself. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
AMEN brother!
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
and that animals aren't able to consent to sex with humans at all
Welll.... There WAS this one Internet video I saw passed around... with a male donkey and this very large human woman bent over... and it sure looked like the donkey was just consenting away, and could get away at any time...
Well, not in the legal sense of the word.
As another poster pointed out, consent has to be informed, something a dog cannot give.
It's not relevant to dogs, but to count legally consent also has to be voluntary:
If a rapist's parter-in-crime kidnaps your children and I say "have sex with me or he'll shoot your kids" you may "consent" but that's under duress and doesn't count, it's still rape.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You know just because there are two people in a apparently 'strait' relationship does not by that merit make a 'normal' couple. Whose definition of normal are we using here anyway, and who is to say that particular definition is the correct one.
I'm in a marriage that consists of a man that is somewhat a transvestite and a female that is bisexual. We originally got married because we were under the impression that marriage was what two people who loved each other and wanted to spend their lives together did. Damn we were made to look quite the fools though.
Through all this recent discussion of marriage going on as of the late we've found out that marriage's sole purpose is for making babies! How dumb we must feel having taken notable measures NOT to have children.
Opinions on zero population growth aside, I believe adoption to be much more of a viable option for dealing with the need to nurture a human child ( I'll stick to cats myself ). At least with adoption your giving those that are all ready here a chance to have a decent life. More people should be adopting in my opinion.
by the parents thinking who's to say that I can have an adopted child because I've satisfied some arbitrary rule of being in a 'heterosexual' relationship? I've broken all the others by being gay and thus a non 'normal' right?
If a bisexual and a transvestite that happen to be the opposite sex are ok to raise children and start a family then I think by that merit a transvestite and a bisexual of the same sex should be awarded the same right universally.
But you see, the very act of gay sex is considered harmful to both parties. That's why your argument is flawed.
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.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
So what you're saying is that to pay the Christian Coalition for its support rendered back in 2000, Microsoft first supported a bill backing Gay Rights and then withdrew support from it as payback?
Wouldn't a better way to pay it back be to not get involved in the first place - like every other company out there?
At least they tried to get a Gay Rights bill passed - which is more than we can say for most other companies.
Mmmm.. Donuts
As for hospital visits, it is simple to say you are visiting a close friend in the hospital.
If you're straight there are laws protecting you from getting fired for running out the door and to the hospital if your SO is in a medical emergency. This isnt true if you're gay. What about gauranteed domestic partner benefits? right now its mandatory for busneses to give them to straight employees but voluntary for gay ones.
I'll also point out that under current laws, gays don't necessarily have gauranteed visitition right in hospitals.
It would not be employer discrimination if they had a blanket policy that you were not to visit close friends hetero/homo boy/girlfriends in the hospital.
true, but most employers don't have said blanket policy.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
In other words, a special right.
And screaming "Racist!" is so 1995.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
One of the perks of being a programmer is that, normally, coding is a refuge from thinking about this kind of crap. GCC doesn't give a fliegende kinderscheisse that I'm gay.
For a while I couldn't read the newspaper without getting a knot in my stomach, and just looking at the Opinion section can give me a headache these days without even reading it. Between what my own state is up to and the creepy backlash building up at the national level, I've decided that sticking it out in the U.S. just isn't worth it and I'm currently saving up to move to Vancouver.
Now, though, the insanity is even making its way onto the Slashdot front page. Tech companies being gay-friendly has always just been a given in the back of my mind. The fact that the biggest of them all is backing off due to outside pressure has me worried even more. I can't shake the feeling that there's something big and scary happening here in the U.S. right now, and the backlash against gay rights is only the tip of it.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
>What makes homosexuals any less fit to provide that?
While I agree that discrimination for pretty much any reason is horrible and just plain stupid:
Children learn how to act from the parent of the same-sex. They learn how to interact with the opposite sex from the parent of the opposite sex. While this isn't a reason to ban homosexuals from raising children (at least SOMEONE cares enough to raise them, right?), it certainly makes it harder to raise them correctly.
Microsoft can't even vote.
Should anyone care whether or not a corporation "supports" a bill? (especially a publically traded corporation).
Isn't it more important to know what the citizens support?
Corporations (especially publically traded ones) will "support" whatever appears to benefit their bottom line. What does that say about a law's merit?
Corporations dont even care about the economy in general.
If a law was to increase the GDP by an additional 2% (beyond its expected growth under the status quo) but result in an additional 20% re-distribution of all wealth more equally you can bet most corporations would oppose it (especially the largest ones).
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Or vagueness? Many laws (if not most) have a fair amount of vagueness in them (some by design), and sometimes two laws conflict with each other. Now, sometimes the ambiguity can be resolved by looking at the intent of the law, to the degree that such a thing exists. (Most people will agree that there's a "spirit" and a "letter" of the law. Where the "letter" is inexact, the "spirit" can help.) However, sometimes a case arises that even the best intentioned (and/or most conservative) judge cannot resolve simply by looking at past precedence, the spirit of the law, etc. In these cases, what is the proper avenue for this judge? Is it better to look at how other countries have resolved this situation and learn from their successes AND failures (i.e., if their resolution resulted in chaos, perhaps a different resolution should be considered), or should the judge rely on the toss of a coin? Or, better yet, perhaps he should ask his favorite political party for an opinion?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Why did so many slashdotters fall for this obvious hoax? This story right here, for everyone who believed it for even a second should be a wakeup call to how disconnected from reality they have become. How many other bogus misrepresentations about Microsoft or other entities have you been suckered into believing?
Do you @ssholes even read the bible anymore?
Christians are encouraged to promote and share their faith with others. Too often do we see Christian figureheads trying to enforce it upon others whom do not share their beliefs. Belief in a 'god' should not be enforced. That's a fascistic line you're crossing.
Like it or not, as Americans we all have the freedom of free speech thing going for us - you have every right to speak your mind and shout "Gay marriage is wrong!" until you're blue in the face. BUT you do NOT have the right to bar gay couples from marriage. You argue that marriage is sacred to you? Yippee for you, but who is to say that marriage is any less sacred to a gay or lesbian couple?!
The 'Christian right' need to put down their torches and focus on parenting their children. Christians (are supposed to) believe that judgment is reserved for their god alone.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
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.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
This is getting way off the original MS-backs-down-from-gay-rights topic, but it does bother me that 14-17 year olds are being treated as adults in the courts but they cannot vote or marry without parental consent. 14-17 year olds are in that "between time" between young adolescence and full-fledged, mature adulthood. We should treat them accordingly - giving them some of the rights of adulthood such as restricted driver's licenses, limited banking privilages, etc., and making them take on the responsibility for criminal acts in porportion to the rights they enjoy, for example, 5-10 instead of 10-20 for a 14 year old bank robber. As far as sex goes, if a 14 year old has an 18 year old boyfriend or a 17 year old has a 27 year old boyfriend and the minor's parents agree and the minor is fully versed on pregnancy, STDs, etc., that may be unwise but it shouldn't be a sex-offense felony for the boyfriend. Now a 14 year old minor going to bed with a 27 year old boyfriend, that's another matter entirely. Book 'em Danno.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Dolphins will have sex with other male dolphins' blowholes
Chris: Dad, what's a blowhole for?
Peter: Well, I'll tell you what it's not for, son, and then you'll understand why we can never go back to Seaworld.
If you don't agree 100% with their position you get branded with all sorts of horrible lables, cheifly among them 'bigot' or 'racist'. Of course the Right does it too, only they prefer 'traitor'.
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.
Looks like there's too much buzz going on about different minorities rights. If you sum up all those minorities they will probably constitute more than the so-called "majority", the poor people who just happen not to fall under any of those "minority" categories. As a result, those minority rights are very often used by the members of such "minorities" to get the benefits they wouldn't have otherwise got. Tell a black/homosexual/whatever other minority member his performance is poor, only referring to his professional level, and very often they'd use their "minority" rights as a cover up. (Please don't get me wrong, I am not accusing every "minority" person of abusing the laws protecting their rights but it's a fact that these things happen a lot) Heck, I'm starting a group for white heterosexual rights protection! I do realize saying things like this can get me lynched on here but this is what I think and it's my right to voice it.
Outsourcing Software Development
since when is there a gay or straight box to check on any employment form, housing application, or loan form? never.
no one will know you're gay unless you flame it all over the place. stop seeking attention. i personally have no problem with it at all, but you're already equal to the rest of us, just like women and blacks are equal under the law.
if i were an employer, i think i should have every right to not hire someone who comes to an interview and deliberately goes over the top with their gayness just to prove a point.
moral: no one cares (or should care) what you do in your bedroom. just dont let everyone know about it. i sure don't.
I think you meant stability?
There are always morons that think you can "teach" children to be gay or straight!! This is usually the basis of what parent poster said.
And about being unnatural, well, there are gay animals all over. For example, a lot of elk have homosexual tendencies in non-mating-season. Gay penguins all over the place (like some zoo got 3 pairs of penguins and then wandered about their poor ofspring production!!). You can even read old Nature from 1800s where you will see priests talking about "animals exhibiting non-christian behaviour".
What is unnatural is cloning kids but with current medicine the human gene pool is already crap (ie. natural selection stopped a few generations ago). So, cloning can't screw it up anymore.... (read: no natural selection => our genetic future is in our own hands, for better or worse)
Seeing as though my parents recently seperated, I have a fairly fresh take on this.
Nowadays there is very little reason to stay married and/or faithful, unless you were rich to start with (and didn't have a pre--nup) then you stand little to lose by walking out. You can meet somebody new, take your half of the shared ownings, and left your spouse in the cold. Between that and the other person's half of his/her life you can start fresh with very little loss.
I'm a little bitter yes, but in the end it seems that most of the marriages I know that have held together were religious ones, with state weddings meaning too little and being too easily broken.
I agree and disagree with you. There are good things that have been done by activist judges, but I would argue that it is a question of weither the ends justifty the means. If we cannot uphold our laws in the most tense of situations why should we uphold them at all?
When the rest of the court decided to condemn the Texas anti-sodomy law as an invasion of privacy, he voted to keep it because he just plain didn't like letting queers sodomize each other.
Would that be activism, bunky?
Infuriate left and right
What legitimate interest is it for the state to say that a woman and another woman or a man and a man cannot marry?
Money, d'uh!
If a gay couple cannot file taxes as "married" when it is to their advantage to do so, they pay more in taxes.
Likewise, if a gay couple cannot rely upon intestacy provisions to handle property distribution when one dies, they have to hire a lawyer to draft a will. Those lawyers pay income tax of the fees gays have to pay to get the same inheritance rights we straights get automatically with the marriage licenses.
There are dozens of ways in which a simple marriage license provides financial advantages, over simply living together. The state has an interest in imposing a "gay tax" as it has for decades, in order to help stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit!
Let's just be glad the state doesn't tax heterosexuality too!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Applied behavioral analysis has many uses (e.g., in the treatment of autism) and is a perfectly valid technique. Furthermore, Walden Two is an excellent book! And, Skinner made many valid points.
Whether or not you agree with any of behaviorism, do not associate it with the GP post! This is like associating Jon Stewart wtih Michael Moore, just because they're both liberal - it's just rude!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
in our sex-conscious society most 12-year-olds of either sex are quite capable of informed consent. No?
NO. They may be informed of the biology of sex, of STDs, etc. but in almost all cases their brains are not fully developed. As such, they cannot have a full understanding of the emotional and other consequences of sexual activity. In particular, they cannot fully understand how it can bring two people closer together and that a breakup after sex is much more likely to be emotionally painful than one absent sexual activity.
I haven't been able to verify it, but I heard on TV that 2/3rds of teen girls who have sex before age 18 regret it.
Having said all of that, do I think someone should go to jail if two 12 year old lovebirds or even a 12 and 14 year old have sex? No. The kids should be counseled and encouraged to delay further sexual activity, but nobody should go to jail assuming there was no rape, coersion, or other criminal activity going on.
Even at 18, a good number of people aren't "all grown up" yet - that is, they will make unwise decisions - but you have to draw the line somewhere, and if you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to control your own body.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The use of "hetero" as a noun refering to hetero sexual people sound alot like using "homo" as a noun to describe homosexual people. Just thought I might point that out.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
::sigh::
I was using it in response to this quote from the grandparent:
It is also your choice to speak without a lisp and keep your sexual preference to yourself, just like the heteros do
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
"Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women". (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5), they should also strive to require by law that : A. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) B. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) C. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) D. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) E. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
You said in 1 word what took me several paragraphs to say.
Very slashdottish too!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading their own values into the Constitution and overriding the decisions of even state supermajorities.
See, there's this pesky document called the federal constitution, which overrides state constitutions, even when those state constitutions have been written by supermajorities. It prevents states from doing obnoxious things such as, oh, re-implementing slavery.
Now let me guess. If the federal constitution were amended to define marriage as between man and woman only, do you think states should be able to override that to allow gay marriage? And if so, would other states then be required (as the federal constitution says) to recognize those marriages as legal?
If at any point you want states to be able to override the federal constitution, then what's the point of a federal constitution?
Infuriate left and right
Don't leap to conclusions. I don't think he was saying he is against affirmative action.
The basis of affirmative action is entrenching a temporary inequality to make up for a major pre-existing inequality which has a societal basis.
That is qualitatively different from a simple anti-discrimination policy.
What you are describing is at the most an induced fetish, and more likely simply a physical response to a given stimulus. Yes, a gay man can have sex with a women (provided that he can get it up), physically he would probably even enjoy it to some extent.
You might even have sex with a 300LB woman and physically enjoy it, you might enjoy a donkey or a sheep or just a magazine and a tub of vasaline.
But loving somebody, being attracted to a person, and enjoying physical sensation is something entirely different. What you describe could just as easily be used to have a person associate something non-sexual. Perhaps you could associate the sound of a bell with having to pee... if you held your bladder constantly and only let it go when a bell rang.
We're not talking about sex here though. Sexual orientation is misleading as a term, though that part perhaps deals with the more visible interactions between those individuals. We are talking about deeper feelings between two individuals, which - though I myself don't share such an attraction - I can understand their desire and even need to persue.
There are Responsibilities as well.
Responsibility for your spouses debts accrued during the marriage.
Responsibility for their medical expenses.
Substantially Higher Income Taxes
Breaking up becomes incredibly expensive
Also relating to the previous remark:
There is no such thing as "Familys Only" neighborhoods in the US. That is already illegal.
And most things like Joint Loans, and Health clubs, are typically available to unmarried couples anyhow (Bad business to do otherwise)
I do agree with the idea, but don't exaggurate the reasons, the legit reasons are plety good enough.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Which is why I'm completely OK with Christians (or anyone else, for that matter), as long as they are tolerant of other people's views. It's really not about being religious, it's about not being close minded.
The gay/lesbian market is a hell of a lot more computer literate than the zombies in the Religious Right. A typical fundie told to boycott MS? Does this person even own a computer? If yes... do you see him switching to Apple? REALLY? It isn't like he's going to be able to depend on his fellow church members for local support.
Gays and lesbians have a lot more disposable income, i.e. they've got the money to buy Macs and they've got to be tired of dealing with Microcrap. Why should they give their money to a political enemy?
Talk this up to your lesbian and gay and Deomcratic activist friends. Every one who switches out of MS is a kick in the balls to Bill Gates. The only question about is... "Did Microsoft shoot itself in the foot or the head?"
Let's do what we can to make sure it's a head shot.
Too bad that Linux isn't really ready for the home user, (only zealots think so - I'm writing this from a Fedora Core box) because this would be the biggest Open Source opportunity in the US ever seen if it was.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Since there's currently no litmus test for what constitutes a committed gay relationship (ie marriage)...
That's your solution then. Allow gay marriage. Problem solved.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
People are people, no matter what colour they are, who they fuck or what they jerk off to. If no one gets hurt by it then who gives a fuck what people do? Get the fuck over yourself and get it into your head that NO ONE GIVES A FUCK about what you think. We're tired of fighting pro-gay/anti whatever bullshit. You fuck off and look after yourself and we fuck off and look after ourselvs and no one has a problem any more.
I like muppets.
You completely ignored what I wrote.
The US legislature created laws requiring employers to allow employees to visit their families in the hospital. They did NOT create laws allowing employees to visit their friends.
And the vast majority of companies comply with the law. So... I ask again: How does this have anything to do with discrimination in the workplace?
The one way to resolve this through the legal system is to petition the government to create legislation allowing gay marriage. As it stands, not only does a large majority of the public not want this, but many states have passed laws or are considering laws to make sure it is not allowed in their state.
or is everything on this site a segue waiting to happen to bash Microsoft?
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?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Where I used to work, there were laws that protected against being fired because you're gay ... but no such laws over being TS. I tried to skate, and just let everybody think I must have been gay, but eventually caved and came out as a tryke (transsexual dyke, the proverbial lesbian woman trapped in a male body). That's when heads of *other* departments started fabricating complaints, trying to fake a "reason" to fire me.
Eventually, after being given nothing to do in months, yet being written up for not doing anything, I was graciously "asked" to resign. That was so transparent that I was even allowed to collect unemployment.
Laws won't change people.
Lemon curry?
An activist judge is one who rules in favor of decisions which which you disagree more often than rules in favor of decisions with which you agree.
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
If you're queer, you buy a Mac. It's all about color coordination.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
In my many years, I've known several people who were molested as children.
Some were "damaged goods." Others, while changed by the experience, were not damaged by it.
From what I've read statistically, sex is quite likely to cause damage, particularly if it's by a parent or caretaker, if the child is of preschool or elementary-school age - i.e. old enough to remember but not yet full of hormones, if the act is physically painful, or if the child perceives he can't say no and mean it.
After she discloses molestation, the actions of others can make a big difference in the outcome:
If the child tells, do people beleive her and take her seriously and take steps to protect her?
If she feels guilty, is she assured that it's not her fault?
etc.
To point out two extremes, a 14 year old boy who seeks out a hooker is much less likely to be "damaged" than an 8 year old brutally and repeatedly raped by her father. Assuming nobody makes him feel guilty about it and that he didn't catch any diseases, the boy is likely to not feel bad about the sex at all, although if he's got any sense of shame he'll regret participating in the "sex trade."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Just because a population has a certain percentage chance of an event does not mean every sub population has the same percentage chance.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
The fundamental concept of marriage is that it's a partnership entered into voluntarily by two consenting adults. Marriage is a legal contract -- if you're unclear about this, read the list of legal rights below that are conferred upon married people.
Now to address to address some misconceptions:
1) Animals don't have rights. When's the last time a walrus entered into a legal contract? Therefore, allowing same-sex marriage does not allow marriage between a man and a dog.
2) polygamy: central to the concept of marriage is partnership and equality. Polygamy is illegal because inherent in a union between one man and many women is inequality. There is no way for one of several women in a union to be equal to the single man in that union.
3) Marriage of minors: again, this is about a legal partnership entered into by two, sound-minded, consenting adults. You cannot have a marriage between a 50 year old and a 12 year old, for example, because of the inherent inequality in their positions, and because legally, minors are not capable of entering into long-term, legal contracst.
Based on this legal definition of marriage, it's absurd that the US does not allow same-sex marriage. There are no secular, rational arguments against it, only religious ones. It's amazing that we would have one group's religious laws applying to people of all religions and no religion. It's as if we were living in Iran.
you also forgot to mentions that in some societies, it is unlawful for people of differing ethnic/racial backgrounds to be married.
You mean like in some parts of the USA as late as the 1960s or early 1970s?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I just dont get all the jesus freaks out there. These bills arent asking for anything that straight people take for granted every day. So because im not gay I get more benefits than my gay friends. Insanity in 2005. This is not 1154.
pun intended.
... unless it is because of something they SAY or DO.
Seriously, I don't support being harmful to anyone but it is legally irresponsible to add gay and lesbian people to the civil rights codes for a very simple reason. Civil rights laws should not include behaviors.
Right now civil rights codes boil down to this.
Don't discriminate because what people believe.
Don't discriminate because of what people look like (your sex being a physical trait as well).
It makes no sense to say "don't discriminate because of how people behave".
People are responsible for their choices and their actions if they are not then we no longer have any need for law whatsoever. (After all why punish or reward someone for an action they are not responsible for?) Now here comes all the people saying homosexuals can't help what they are? I can tell you without a doubt they CAN help what they do.
There is significantly MORE evidence the alcoholism is inherited TENDANCY then there is the homosexuality is an inherited TENDANCY. Should we make it illegal not to hire Alcoholics because of what they do, after all they can't help it?
As has been stated many times there is no way to tell a person who has homosexual feelings from a strait person
It is what they SAY and DO that makes them fit the category of being homosexuals.
Just because somebody always wants to steal something a TENDANCEY doesn't mean they ever will It is only after they repeatedly give into that urge that they become thieves. We call this kleptomania and last time I checked no one was considering adding those people to the civil rights laws either. How is this giving oneself over to strong TENDANCY in kleptomania any different they giving oneself over to the TENDANCY of alcoholism or the TENDANCY of homosexuality? It isn't the only difference is moral and physical effects of disease the person suffers from.
Civil rights laws dictate hiring practices. Every employer should have the freedom to not hire people who are doing things that are immoral according the EMPLOYERS judgment. They should have the right not to associate themselves and force their customers to associate with people whom they believe have a poor moral character.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I figure it's only a matter of time until a truly democratic process does exactly what you're talking about.
The US isn't a domocracy, it a representational republic, with leanings to fascism.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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.
Im not sure im following your logic here. I think being gay is just fine, but I dont see how this would work out when it comes to reproducing. If everyone was gay, we would not be reproducing. How is not being able to reproduce normal? You can do so by artificial means, but Im not sure how that would impact our society of everyone started to reproduce in this fashion on a large scale.
*Please check yourself internally, before responding to this post. Let go of any mental position you have that has created a emotional barrier to being able to talk civilly about this important topic. I and will try to do the same*
I had enough teasing being a geek and/or because my mom was somewhat classified as a MILF by other students. I'd hate to see what things would have been like if my mom were also a dad...
Maybe if I were a foster kid I would appreciate any family better than none... depends on the rest of the environment around me. Am I a bigot when I consider such an environment hostile for a child? Schools can be a pretty harsh place, and sometimes I'm surprised I survived through some of the stuff I dealt with in them. Remember, your kids might be able to deal with the alternate sexuality of same-gender parents, but how well will they deal with playground beatings and/or when their friend Billy's dad won't let him stay over for a sleepover?
There is still a lot of your so-called bigots in the world today. I think that the overall attitude in regards to homosexuality is definately becoming more tolerant, but I'm not sure we've whittled down the bigot population enough that I'd support raising kids in a same-sex environment.
That's actually not true. The only US-born babies that are not adopted usually have mental or health problems. As a matter of fact, couples hoping to adopt often have to pass strict screenings and sit on waitlists for years. "In the United States, for example, adoptions of U.S.-born children satisfy between one-half and two-thirds of the total demand for nonbiological children."
6 11 -p10/ethan-b-kapstein/the-baby-trade.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82
The majority is not always right, and neither is the minority. Just like you I vote my conscience, and my conscience says that homosexuality is a sin, there are certain non-negotiable things, and for many religious americans this may be one of them.
Just yesterday I was reading on Slashdot about how evil corporations were, about how they should not be allowed involvement in government or political campaigns.
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.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Microsoft is generally considered the most gay-friendly corporation in the world. The Gay Union at my college has received grant money from Microsoft twice in the last 10 years. And this is just a 30 person group at a D3 school in NJ
Free MacMini
Oh my god, what IS normal?
My dad never took me to any sporting events growing up, nor did he ever play sports with me, nor encourage me into sports. Somehow, this is about the gayest non-gay thing you can do to a boy. Yet I turned out "normal" anyway (per your definition). Not athletic, nor interested in sports... but sure loves me some vagina.
I don't think having gay foster parents would have any influence on whether a foster kid is gay or not. In fact, due to the rejection of parental norms phase in the teens, the kid is most likely going to be pushed the OPPOSITE way.
Your "if everyone was gay" comment demonstrates that you have not let go of your mental baggage. Or at least, suggests it. Everyone's not going to be gay. On the other hand, free from the prejudiced influences of our forebears, I suspect that most people would end up being bisexual, or perhaps as some say "trysexual - I'll try anything once". In such a world it might be acceptable to love anyone you want.
As for the societal impact of only reproducing artificially, that day may come eventually regardless of homosexuality or lack thereof. Eventually medical science will progress to the point where we are able to do the job better than ma nature. Sex will lose some of the unnecessary emotional overhead when it is no longer necessary for procreation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sometimes the truth is blunt. I couldn't agree with you more.
It would behoove anyone who hasn't read up on the topic yet to google the wide variety of sexual behavior observed in the animal kingdom before coming to any conclusions about the "naturalness" of same-sex proclivities.
-a straight shooter
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. The majority of the people in this country voted for a born-again president and a majority of born-again folks in the House of Representatives. The Senate, while perhaps not as democratic as the other chamber of Congress and the White House, are all still elected directly by the people.
It might be nice to pin this all on "The Man," but "The Man" was put there by the people, including you and everybody around you. This is the nature of democracy, just ask anybody from Aristotle to Tocqueville.
</BITTER CYNICISM>
But I don't like the first one. Declining to hear the case is making a decision - a decision to let the lower court's ruling stand. Perhaps this is their intent, but I suspect your rationale might be the more common one. I truly have no idea.
As for your second point, for some laws this makes sense, but I'm not sure if it does for all laws. Take the Schiavo case - once the feeding tube was out some type of decision must be made, and made quickly. In this particular case I agree that the correct decision is to leave the case to the local/state courts. However, this case highlights the fact that we don't always have the luxury of letting the legislation clean up the law.
As an aside, I read an excellent comment somewhere about why (some) laws should not be written like software design specifications should be written. If the laws try to be too exact, they end up spelling out exactly where the loop-holes are. An interesting idea, although I'm not entirely sure I agree with it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I consider a federal judge who ... distorts the language away from it's original meaning when it was written, to be an activist judge.
Original meaning is not always clear, and distortion is in the eye of the beholder.
Remember, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court said the Civil-War ammendments of the US Constition did not require integrated schools.
Half a century later, in Brown v. Topeka, they reversed themselves.
Historically speaking, Plessy was probably closer to the original meaning of these ammendments. Was the mid-20th-century Court an activist court? Possibly, but in this particular case I think it's a good thing.
A very practical definition of an activist judge is any judge that interprets the Constitution in a way the complainer doesn't like.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Am I wrong to wonder about socialization?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Fair enough, just don't expect me to tolerate your belifs either.
what your vast intellect fails to understand is that the population of all heterosexual marriages in the united states is VASTLY Heterogeneous. there are people with 10+ divorces and couples married for 60 years. you cannot assign the population statistics to any given member of the population unless it is a homogeneous population
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Deserved what? To live to a ripe old age and die of natural causes and be mourned by a quarter of the planet's population when he was gone? Hell, I'll take a helping of that too, please.
I read that as: "Microsoft Abandons Gay Bill"
And I thought, "Didn't they do that years ago when Monkey Ballmer became the CEO?"
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
This bothers me quite a bit. Not because of the gay rights issue (at this point, I don't really care one way or another), but because people are getting upset that Microsoft, a privately held corporation, is not acting out on a support of a law.
Microsoft is a company. It makes software and some hardware. What does Microsoft have in any way, shape or form to do with social politics? The only error Microsoft made was to get involved with this in the first place.
What's next, a story on Slashdot about how Cisco systems doesn't contribute money to cancer research? Should we see hundreds of posts about how Cisco is a heartless corporation and that it must hate cancer victims?
And I'd wish all those religion bashers would realize that most religious people are more or less nice, decent people who care about all of mankind. To lump your average Christian in with outspoken zealots and shout off insane statements like "religion is ruining our country" is stupid.
Get your head out of your asses, you closed minded bigots. You're just as bad as the fundies.
The Internet is generally stupid
This is why they are now agaisnt the bill.
It serves Microsoft's own corporate interest to protect themselves if any gay or lesbian employee files a suit agaisnt there company.
Believe it or not the Americans with dissabilities act and non discrimination laws are being used in almost any lawsuit dealing with job termination.
Many employers now prefer not to hire anyone with a dissability or member of a minority race for that reason. Its gone out of control.
http://saveie6.com/
You've *got* to be kidding. Christians are one of the least-discriminated-against groups in this country. At the moment, the most-bashed group is the liberals. Fundamentalist Christians also get slammed, but *not* Christians, as a general rule.
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution
Look at Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Many would argue that "others retained by the people" include the right to perform consensual gay sex acts on private property.
"Odd, given their previous accolades from the GLBT community, and their prior public support for the bill."
What's odd about it? The far right is controlling our government right now and they are controlled by a few religious fanatics. Microsoft wants to continue whoring political favors so that they can gain unfair advantages through legislation. It's only natural that they wouldn't want to support anything that would anger these religious zealots.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If everyone was gay, we would not be reproducing.
And if everyone were lawyers, we would have sued each other out of existence by now. What's your point? My point is, we are *all* different, choose different paths, make different decisions. That is a *good* thing.
You cannot argue something is bad simply because it does not allow reproduction. There are many species that rely on non-reproducing members. Bees, for instance. Ants. It is not a biological imperetive to reproduce.
Social issues should not be determined by the ability or willingness to reproduce. Fuck, there are too many people reproducing as it is. As population pressures increase, I hope there are more gays. We should be encouraging people to be gay, fer christs sake.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If you're talking about things like love, respect, caring, friendship, bonding, etc, then I personally don't think sex or sexual orientation have anything to do with it. That's just my opinion though.
I've formed loving relationships with lots of people of both sexes. I love some of my old buddies from high school more than most of the girlfriends I've had, and some of the women I love most in the world I have never and will never have a sexual relationship with because we're not attracted to each other. Those feelings don't have anything to do with my sexual orientation.
I think of sexual orientation and attraction as a barrier. It's a filter that says "Of all these people that I see at the bar, I will pursue a sexual relationship with only those. Of all the people that I love, I will consider a marriage with only these."
I think at the end of the day the link between love and sex in the individual is about as strong as the link between the sound of a bell and having to pee. Which is to say, as strong as their decisions and experiences have caused it to be; and from what I can see in most people out there that's not very strong at all. Color me cynical.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Please also realize that that we do not really know what the terms MAN and WOMAN mean.
g en-term.html
Most people think a baby is born and the doctor looks at him/her and says its a boy/girl and that is written on the birth certificate. And we are done.
Some people get sex change operations and then though some legal process, get (I guess) a new birth certificate.
Well that is usually the case however there are some execeptions.
In one case in 10,000 the doctor goes "Ummmm" or "WTF!" It is not clear what the sex of the child is.
What generally happened (especially before 1980) was the doctor would do a little surgury and ASSIGN a sex of female(because it was easiest) and the child was started on female hormones (if needed) at a future date. In many cases the child was not told about this and only discovered the truth after the child was married and went to the doctor to find out if/why they could not have children.
We can now do a DNA test and determine the sex of these folks in most cases. (I believe that slightly more than 1/2 of them are eventually discovered to be male)
How should the law treat these people????
They can not marry ever? They adopt children and CPS must take them away when they are found out? Military service? This gets to a a very nasty road...
Now to make things really nasty there are people from a genetic standpoint who are not female and also not male. XXY and such, also there Chimeras:
brie.medlabscience.med.ualberta.ca/de/genetics/70
Thanks for keeping an open mind. One question back to you. If we limit marriage to two people of any sex, What damage to my traditional marrige of over 20+ years can even be concidered to occur? I have never seen a real attempt to answer this question.
For fucks sake, is this really so important to be on the front page of Slashdot? I will probably be modded down for this, but anyway...
While Slashdot thinks it is important to post news about Microsoft backing away from a gay bill with a source of from a random blog, there has been GCC 4 released, Apple has been paying tech editors to praise iPod, they managed to put 200 Gbits on a holographic disk and ton more of real news that matters.
1) Explain the fact that somehow, you never consciously decided to like the opposite sex (since it is jarringly obvious that this is the only thing you ever conceived), yet somehow ALL homosexuals DID consciously decide to like the SAME sex, AND put up with all the shit that goes along with that. Explain that one to me. Gay sex must feel good something FIERCE, for these people to have to WANT to go through this shit. See the flaw in your logic? It pretty much HAS to be something you're born with, or at least, something you never "decided" to like.
2) It is "undermine", not "undermind".
3) Use of the phrase "sexual deviant" should be reserved for when someone is harmed, such as child abuse- not two consenting adults.
4) I have no idea when the fuck Apple became some sort of lightning-rod for computer-using fags, but it is really starting to piss me off. I loves me some pussy and I also use a G5 at home, and wish I didn't have to use Windows at work. I just have more of an open mind than about everyone I run into.
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.
The ultimate in marraige equality is to not have any government recognition of them at all.
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
They specifically ruled, not because of personal likes and dislikes, but because the constitution says no cruel and unusual punishments. It may or may not be cruel, but it has been getting more and more unusual as the years have gone by. What are they supposed to do, interpret "cruel" and "unusual" by 1780 standards?
Whether or not you think it cruel or unusual is irrelevant unless you are one of the nine. If you don't like it, tough. They didn't just decide arbitrarily, they based it on logic and reasoning. To slur them because you disagree is just as bad as being an activist judge.
Infuriate left and right
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.
Actually I think you are complicating the issue. Marriage is a term that applies to a union between a man and a women. If two homosexual people would like to get together, Why not just call it something else? I know it would be difficult to get all the rights of a married couple but its better then trying to get the term marriage to include homosexual unions? I could be out of the loop but this seams to make sense?
In theory, the roll of public companies in society isn't just to make money for a few people. Most corporations have a mission statement that spells out why they should be granted these special "personhood" rights. In that statement is often more than just money making. There is almost always a fuzzy "Values" section where they say what good they will bring to the world in exchange for these rights. Wouldn't it be a better world if more companies attempted to live up to there own values?
25-24.
r y. asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20XGR%20Gay%20Rights
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_sto
The advantage of having a huge company and a near monopoly is the ability to do whatever you choose. Want to put out a low quality product? Sure go for it! Want to support a social cause? Sure go for it! Want to drop said cause like a hot potato? Sure go for it. The consequences are all the same.
None.
No I dont think i have any baggage about this toppic but maybe i could have said it better. Im tring to understand this topic better, thank you for your comment you have a good point. Im not saying being gay is wrong. I just dont know what impact it would have if natural reproduction didnt happen.
Those eleven states were specifically chosen by the people supporting those laws as the most likely states to pass such a thing. Let's take a look at the list:
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.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
When placing foster and adoptive children, the agency should consider 2 things:
1) is the prospective parent or couple BETTER than where the child is now?
2) is the prospective parent or couple AS GOOD AS any other prospective parent or couple that's likely to be available SOON?
Even if you are correct when you say "gay couples shouldn't be allowed to be foster parents," and I don't think you are, MANY foster kids are in group homes or other situations that are WORSE OFF than a less-than-ideal foster or adoptive parent.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So?I can guarantee you without doing any empirical research at all that being raised by certain single guardians is worse than being raised by certain gay couples, and likewise that being raised by certain gay couples is worse than being raised by certain single guardians. So, what bearing should this have on legal policy?No, you are not wrong to wonder about socialization. You are wrong to prevent good people from doing good things.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
They can and do have children naturally. Rather often.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"Why is it states are passing referendums, public referendums, where homosexual marrige is outlawed by votes over 80%??"
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.
No corporation should lobby for any legislation under any circumstance, no matter how good the cause. It's good to see Microsoft not interfering with government for once.
I was wondering if this could have anything to do with Iraq? We know Bush is anti-gay and Microsoft is or was pro-gay. So Bush gets Microsoft to drop the pro-gay thing in exchange for some special right to selling software in Iraq as the Iraqi market begins to open up. I would like to know what other People think.
Anyone notice the rampant hypocrisy here with folks being upset by this?
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?
What about the human right to employ whom I please?
Maybe millions of GLBT and GLBT-friendly computer users will boycott Microsoft and start buying Macs?
Bruce
The real decision was 5-2-2-0. Five said "you fucked up, stop now", two said "it's fucked up, yes, but try again", two more said "ain't our job, Art II of the Constitution says FL legislature's job".
Not one US Supreme Court justice came down on the side of Gore. The 5-4 malarky you hear is just a lot of hot air - Gore was on really thin ice legally.
SCOTUS played nice with SCOFLA. The US Supreme court could have gone all the way to Article II of the US Consitution that says that electors are selected "as the legislature directs".
Not the Governor of the state. And certianly not a judge or a court. The legislature, and only the legislature.
And SCOTUS held that power as plenary - or not subject to any review by anyone - back in 1890 or so. That means that if the FL legislature had voted that FLs electors had to vote for Donald Duck, the only thing FL or anyone else could do would be to vote the legislators out of office - the Electoral College voters they selected would still be FLs reps to the Electoral College.
But if SCOTUS had done that, they would have had to use the Constitution directly to smack SCOFLA over the head.
Apparently, that's not the way SCOTUS likes to do things. They used the weakest law necessary to get to the place where a reading of the Consitution demanded they had to go. Just because SCOTUS didn't break out the baseball bat and bash SCOFLA with it doesn't mean it wasn't ready to be used, or that there weren't much stronger arguments to be made for the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore.
And both right, but being Slashdot, I thought I'd put the "Wrong" right up there in big black text on the title.
It's true there are huge hoops to run through and "ideal" children rank high on the adoption meat market (white, no mental or physical health problems, young, and relatively free of "strings" such as living parents who may sue for them in the future) There are even web sites splashing these kids' smiling faces all over, you can shop for them almost like a new car.
But if we count a kid as a kid, there are countless hordes of "less-than-perfects" that mommy-and-daddy-to-be wouldn't even think of tarnishing their utopian fantasies with, and they need homes and parents.
My foster brother finally succeeded in adopting one (also an alternative-type adopter -- he was single when he started the process -- single and male rank about as low for a parent as "15 year old mentally retarded with antisocial personality disorder" does for a kid).
My point is my foster brother finally had to hire an attorney and prepare to sue the state to be able to adopt any child, no matter how "undesireable". They caught a hint and finally stopped various delaying tactics (their latest was to use the state's law which allowed them to ask clarification on any issue in the application. This allows them a 30 day delay and it's limitless. They sent him the same question, over, and over, and over, and over. He gave the same answer, over, and over, and over... It was some question having nothing to do with anything, not a hot-point or anything.
The social workers are like little gods and have arbitrary power over the lives of the kids (and to some extent, their would be or real parents).
When he finally got the kid, the kid had been basically locked in a bedroom with a bunch of other kids, and owned only two changes of clothing. They had insane rules and had actually forbidden the child to TALK TO ANYONE EVER except the social workers -- they were utterly controlling even the child's speaking life.
Every disobidience led them to believe that he was poorer behaved and led to stricter (insane) rules.
Anyway, the kids fine now has a normal 14 year old life. My foster brother later got married and inherited her two kids, so there's three now.
The adoption system in this country works, in effect, to keep kids from parents and parents from kids. If you have ANY problem in your life at ALL, ANYTHING, ANYTHING (you must be ideal, either an ideal kid or an idea parent. As parents, you MUST be -- married, similiar in age, the same color (yes, this is true -- some places will only put a kid with a parents who are the same COLOR as they are -- so if you are two different colors, no kids for you), and have what they consider a valid reason for adopting kids. Such as (the only acceptable reason) -- you are infertile, you've tried EVERYTHING, but it didn't work. On rare occasions they might accept a single FEMALE, but never a male.
If you don't happen to slide right into their stereotypical world, don't worry, you can always sue them. For $10,000 or so.
As a kid, you must be: Very young (if you're 10 or over, forget it), white (or at least the same color as both potential parents), no strings attached (better if both your parents are dead and all four of your grandparents as well), no physical, mental, or emotional problems, period. If you did happen to (amazingly) make it through foster care, the death of all your relatives, or whatever, without any emotional or mental disorders, and feel out from the rest of the kids, don't worry, the nice psychologist will assign you one of your very own. Arbitrarily.
And on and on it goes.
The plight of these kids and their would-be-parents goes on and on. But unlike the mass of lonely single people who can't find each other, from a lack of the heart to try, the problem here is external, not internal. It's called the foster care and adoption system. And it's fucked up more lives than alchoholic parents or divorces, or whathave you ever could have.
It's such nonsense that because a person likes to do disgusting things with other men that they both somehow deserve "special treatment." The only "special treatment" they should get is a visit to the psychiatric ward for their disorders. Before you whine and complain, this is the viewpoint of the MAJORITY of Americans who helped elect Bush to his second term. What helped the Bush victory was all of this gay "rights" crap being advertised nonstop by the liberals. That angered us conservatives so much and forced us to not sit down but to go out and vote. So keep it up, liberals. Keep advertising your rainbows flags and men kissing other men. That only adds more conservative votes come election time. If you don't like it, there are plenty of gay-friendly countries like Canada, Australia, and France.
It's almost a social commentary & evaluation system!
/. mod system, by randomly choosing moderators and giving them limited power, has almost completely eliminated the always-present Very Vocal and Very Incorrect minority--giving them the volume they deserve.
I keep my comment level set at 2: for the most part. I'm reading through here and realizing that I had trouble finding ANY anti-gay comments.
If you think about it, it makes perfect, beautiful sense. The
If the minority was correct (or even had anything new to say), some moderators would find the comments thought-provoking (even if they didn't agree) and they would bubble to the top.
On top of that, If I am actually in a mood where I can enjoy reading and replying to the hate filled ranting of a bunch of parrots and trolls, I can reset my comment level lower and have at it--so there is nothing really lost.
This would make a nice model for public voting.
"there are gay women, gay blacks, gay hispanics, gay indians, and gay men"
Apparently only white folk register to you as "men" or "women".
Lets say 200 years down the road, we dicover another intelligent Humanoid species circling another star system.
Will the church say that a Male Terran cannot cannot marry a female Non-Terran because Jesus Christ died on the cross for the Terrans inhabiting Earth?
This is a policy discussion. Obviously, in saying that I am looking at "empirical" evidence, I am considering aggregates, not anecdotes. Thus, I care not about "certain" single parents or "certain" gay couples. I care about better vs. worse. I am not prepared to allow most children be poorly socialized so that good people can feel good about themselves.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
There have been studies that seem to indicate this, however the methods and sample populations used make their conclusions dubious at best (a high number of known criminals, for example)
Here you come to the real crux of the matter. It is entirely related to the job of a pastor. Think about it. Most Christian churches in this country teach that homosexuality is a sin akin to drunkenness, marital infidelity, and stealing. Just as you would not want to hire a pastor who was a drunk because he would be a bad example to the congregation, so you would not want to hire someone whose lifestyle exhibits what the church teaches as a moral wrong. This law would make it impossible for churches to reject candidates whose lifestyles are those of a homosexual despite the fact that it is opposition to their religious teachings (protected by the constitution) and really common sense. Do you want to hire someone who actively stands for something your organization is expressly against? To put it another way, would you want to hire a development manager that encouraged their developers to write slow, unmanagable code?
The Bible expressly teaches that elders (pastors are considered elders in most churches) of a church should lead lives that are "beyond reproach". This means that whether the candidate's lifestyle is characterized by being a habitual liar, glutton, drunk, adulterer, or homosexual, they are disqualified from service in the church.
On another note, it should be added that homosexuals can qualify as elders if they do not practice homosexuality. I have listed many other sins to make the point that we all are flawed and tempted to what the Bible teaches as wrong, but just because you are tempted to behave in such a way does not mean that you must behave as such. The proclamations in the Bible are not any stronger against homosexuality than any other sin. There is no room for "homo-phobia" in Christianity. The expectations for those tempted toward homosexuality are no different than those who are tempted to cheat or steal. Both are expected to live lives of repentance and obedience to scripture if they are to seek a pastorate or elder.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
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) In case you didn't notice, your statement is telling people it is morally wrong to say what is and isn't morally wrong. Therefore, by your own definition, your statement is unethical. You must realize that there is freedom of speech in this country. Sure, people will abuse it, preachers and protesters of every kind might do nothing more then hurl insults at each other. But, I, like you, are entitled to at least an opinion, and am entitled to speak that opinion.
It's called the tyranny of the majority, and it's been a catalyst for oppression for hundreds of years.
It's why you - the US - and many countries with like values wrote something called the Constitution.
I suggest you perhaps study it sometime.
As far as making for a more enjoyable browsing experience; I have to give you that! Let's not take things too far however, lest you find yourself in that minority one day.
Bush wouldn't really give a damn about it.
[blokequote]lack of money should not be a reason not to have children.[/blokequote]
Not having money to support them is the best excuse ever not to have kids next to just being two complete dolts who should not propagate like you and anything that ever looked at you. This is not a troll, see I have a real SlashID. Since when is not having the resources to support offspring a poor excuse from refraining to procreate?
Where you said
"my parents who were not particularly [something] had five kids"
I'm assuming [something] is "intelligent". QED.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
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
A sig is a waste of bits.
Really, who cares what the megacorp is doing, Linux is free for anybody to use and to support, whether they be "good" or "evil".
Meh.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
When did Microsoft become a branch of the government?
Marriage is a WORD. Get the hell over it. If there was a civil union that established ALL of the same legal protections as marriage, that wouldn't bother you, but if it was called marriage it would? Excuse me? And you know what? The bible does NOT say that marriage is between one man and one woman. It says that marriage is between one man and one (or more) women. There is no sacrement of marriage in the bible. All the discussion of marriage in the bible concernes something that is assumed to exist, and how one should behave in marriage. God does not, in the bible, great the sacred bond of marriage. He creates man and woman and marriage seems to just come naturally from that. He then condemns adultery.
The obsession with marriage as some sort of perfect union is a very new thing among evangelicals. Christians have traditionally (since Augustine) viewed marriage as a necessary evil, not as the apotheosis of christian living.
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
Microsoft abandons homosexualism on the same day that Texas will ban homosexualist foster families, and the same day that a homosexualist pride rally at school backfired. Homosexualism is a leading cause of AIDS. With Senator Clinton opposing special rights for homosexualists, we are living in good days!
When people disagree with you, that's not automatically discrimination. When you can't codify your whole religion into the law of the land, that isn't persecution.
Christians are in the majority. A minority of that majority want to turn the US into a theocracy. The rest of us object... but don't confuse that objection with either discrimination or persecution.
Acceptable to bash Christians? You wish...
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
I see... so if my mom divorces my dad, and my mom and I decide that we love each other romantically and want to get married, shouldn't the state allow that by your definition? Where does it stop? If you say "Oh, but incest is illegal," well why is it? By whose standards? By whose morals? Yes there are biological reasons, but what of a son and father? Mother and daughter? There is a point where there is a moral basis for many of our laws.
Let me first say that Christians are in sin if they treat someone poorly for being gay. Jesus said, "let him without sin cast the first stone." He also said not to get the speck out of your neighbor's eye until you get the log out of your own eye. In all ways He walked in love toward everyone around Him.
Yes, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. People say that I am intolerant of gays because I am Christian, but that is not true at all. I have friends who are gay, but I will never say that it is not a sin. At the same time I will not condemn someone for it, but I try to give them the truth that I have found--
People who say it is genetic do not understand the change that a person makes when he makes Jesus the lord of his life. This is something the world doesn't understand. The desire to obey God and be more like Him overcomes any desire of my flesh.
How are they using a loophole?
When the law was written, the term "common law marriage" was considered too common place to be a legal term, so "legal union" was used. Any married couple or couple in a legal union is allowed to be a foster parent in Texas. Many years later, gay couples began forming legal unions. So, they fit the letter of the law even though the authors of the law did not intend for legal union to cover same-sex unions. This is a loophole because it is not illegal, but it is not what the authors of the law intended. So, the current stink in Texas is about redefining "legal union" in the foster child laws to specifically be between a man and a woman, as implied when it was written. It is not as though the law initially said "gays can be foster parents too!" and now they want to remove that.
To a greater extent, this is important because it redefines "legal union" in Texas. It is important for gay couples to be allowed to have legal unions for legal reasons. For instance, a gay spouse is not allowed to make decisions on their partners behalf in a hospital. A gay spouse is not entitled to ANY of a partner's estate upon death. A gay spouse cannot sue for any support upon 'divorce'. I'm rather surprised that this hasn't proceeded quickly because along with the good benefits comes the bad: creditors and tax collectors coming after the gay spouse when the partner gets behind on payments. You'd think Visa/Mastercard and the IRS would be shoving gay partnership right through the Supreme Court.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
Any bill of this nature would never have passed regardless of MS support. The right would never vote for it, and the left would never vote for it either fearing backlash from middle america who would never have voted for them anyways. Who said it? I didn't abandon the democratic party, they abondoned me.
Congratulations, you can use a dictionary. You certainly showed me.
Last time I checked, "white men" aren't considered a minority in America. If you look at my original post, there is an obvious pattern of listing groups that are generally considered minorities in USA. Since you know how to use a dictionary, I assume you are capable of picking up on that.
Your argument is flawed in that you assume there exists some universal set of morals. There are plenty of people that don't agree with you on what is a "perverted" lifestyle. Your implication that homosexuality is a misuse of sexual intercourse only weakens any ground you were standing on before. Sexual intercourse is a means of reproduction, but many people use contraceptives to avoid this so that they can have sex just for the pleasure. Are these people also perverts?
I highly doubt that there are many employers who enjoy paying spousal benefits to their employees, but who are the employers to judge the employee's lifestyle? Perhaps your employees shouldn't receive a paycheck because, hey, wouldn't want that money to go towards something of which you don't approve. Whether or not this person is married is not your call to make. If their union is recognized by the state in which your company resides, you should pay the benefits as such.
What's more, I question how much research you've done in this area. Merriam-Webster can hardly be considered the definitive source on this matter since this subject can not be summarized in one sentence. Many studies (Hamer & Copeland [1994], Bailey & Martin [1995], et. al.) have shown evidence that homosexuality is biological in nature and people can not just STOP being homosexual. While there is still no clear-cut explanation as to how homosexuality occurs, it still exists elsewhere in nature (bottlenose dolphins, bison, et. al.). As a corollary to your argument that no one is gay "until they have sex with someone of their own gender," are you not also implying that no one is straight until they have sex with someone of the opposite sex? Did you doubt your heterosexuality until you had sex with someone of the opposite sex?
Furthermore, I don't know if you could call any argument seated in hundreds and thousands of years of history "irrelevant." Prejudice has existed since the beginning of the human race. Millions of people have died under bigotry. How can you call anything remotely related to this "irrelevant"?
At the risk of sounding redundant: no one is asking you to embrace homosexuals....
You like to fish. What if I was interviewing you and decided not to hire you based solely on the fact that you liked to fish? Or what if I found out after hiring you and then fired you? Replace your fondness of fishing with your race, your sexual orientation (and believe me, it's not a preference...no one 'prefers' to be the target of many religious zealots and bigots like you), your sex, your religion, or whatever else could be used against you.
It's unfortunate that we even need to put bills like this in effect. I can not comprehend bigotry because I just don't feel the same way. If you're the right person for the job, I'm going to hire you...plain and simple.
Man, if I only had some mod points...
My awful memory does not allow me to remember such details as the author, but I think I've heard a very similar quote from a Roman writer from the classical times.
According to the New York Times (today, 04-21-2005) the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $100,000 in 2003 to the Delay Foundation, which runs an orphanage and is a means by which friends of the Majority Leader may get lucrative contracts for friends of him that are involved in construction.
If you were to ask Mr. Delay, I think he'd be not all that eager to support gay and lesbian issues, including same sex partnership rights, marriage, adoption and all sorts of issues that are important to gay and lesbian taxpayers. I'm also certain Mr. Delay is perfectly happy to limit life and living options available to these taxpayers all the while accepting their tax dollars and spending them as if they were regular tax dollars based on some notion that comes out of a rather obscure story in the Old Testament.
What is really indicated in this gift from one non-profit to another is a measure of political support, because the Republicans, if you will recall, stopped the breakup of Microsoft and prevented the US Department of Justice from pressing for any real remedy for the Microsoft monopolistic practices.
Of course, this calls to question the political support given by Bill and Melinda, along with Microsoft to Mr. Delay for his campaigns as well as his trips abroad, his campaign to jerrymander Texas so that it is always Republican and his other political interests. One doesn't tend to care about Mr. Delay's charity unless one is doing business with him.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
I hear theres a couple of faggots working on Linux, so I am converting my office of 10 back to Microsoft Windows. A good step in the right direction Bill!
For those of you browsing at +2 w/karma bonuses (doubtful in a 1300 post story), I apologize for keeping my karma bonus on so long into this idiotic thread.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Don't worry, it's common for closet homosexuals to engage in homophobic behaviour.
I do detest that flippant argument. It always seems to surface in these sort of discussions. How can 'you don't agree with me so you must be secretly gay' amount to anything more than childish name calling?
As to homophobia, I believe there's a certain natural 'background radiation' of it. Humans generally find the 'atypical' scary until they learn that it's not threatening.
BTW, the gay rights bill failed by one vote and Microsoft is going to get blamed.
You know gays, lesbians, and people in the moderate to left political range who have been bitching about Windows? Point out to them that $499 Macs "just work" and give them a Macmini URL.
If you know any propeller-heads that fit this description and have been thinking about moving to Linux, tell 'em it's time.
Financial opportunities: This hasn't shown up in MS's stock prices... people with gambling money might want to take short positions.
Tech Public Policy stuff
If they were married! Find me 10 homosexuals who are in a lifetime commitment to a member of the opposite sex and you can post that trash.
Marriage is a relationship to jointly support children. Not a toy.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Come back with some proof.
I'm an atheist. I'm also the unfortunate beneficiary of a large insurance settlement. I have had a vasectomy because I have no desire to have children.
In short, you were completely wrong with your knee jerk reaction.
You on the other hand are a pathetic little person who resorts to name calling and lying to browbeat others into agreeing with you.
And the proof of that is right there on the screen for everyone to see.
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? Short answer: Yes As sad as it is, this is absolutly true. The truly sad thing is that most people don't give a damn.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Well as stupid as it is, even if the OP was joking, girl on girl is, according to christianity, completely fine.
In reality it isn't guy-guy relationships that are the problem it is sodomy. Anal-sex and blowjobs are the evil sins, doesn't matter if it is guy-guy or guy-girl. If 2 guys are going to have a sexual relationship then one of these is required.
The sarcastic comment of the hypocrasy of the religious caste could shown properly with the male infatuation with BJs while yelling about how wrong gay couples are.
However, the ones who do use computers are both least likely know of alternatives and least likely to change.
That's the very meaning of the word "conservative".
Tech Public Policy stuff
I'm curious. What would happen if I were a homosexual manager and fired one of my heterosexual subordinates because I disagreed with their lifestyle? Would they be in some way legally protected or would they be just as screwed as a fired homosexual?
Well '!=' I suppose...
In general, the majority of people are afraid of same-sex marriage. I'm not sure why, I'm not sure if they're just spiteful or stupid (it's either one, the other or both), but you'll find that more than 66% of any state's population for most states (with a few exceptions) will vote to deny the rights of same-sex couples to have easy access to over one-thousand legal rights and benefits despite the fact that it causes no harm to anyone.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Am I the only one who fiends it VERY disturbing that a software company would have any sway in social issues?? That's just not right! What is this country coming to eh! They already control our desktops, now they want to control our lives as well? Yeah... Something wrong there eh!
Oh! and does this mean Bill and Steve Jobs have broken up? I know Bill's been a bit miffed about that whole OSX thing, and then that MacMini stuff. I'd hate to see them break up over something like that.
well I guess the programmers who work for www.gaypornnow.com are pretty safe in their jobs then
Why all this Microsoft news...where's my Apple news?
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
thought I'd say hello to the people who find attacks on people both Christian and insane so offensive that you have to burn mod points on them.
Tech Public Policy stuff
They just don't want to be refered to as a company supporting the use of a back door.
Well just yesterday I told someone the Bible is a book of lies. It is. But because you said it, I must be christian.
No reason or logic, just lies and name calling. Did a priest touch your no-no when you were in church? Is that why the wittle baby is so pouty-wouty?
Sad, pathetic thing. You're a liar and a coward, and we see it. Every time you post you back it up. If you had looked like you claim to, you'd see very clearly that you were wrong. But you won't. Because you're only interested in adding to others' misery to make you temporarily forget your pathetic, go nowwhere do nothing life.
And I got in to MS early and quintupled my money. Eat it browneye.
I don't see where you get the idea Christians think girl/girl is better than guy/guy. I doubt you'll find many, if any, Christians that would condemn guy/guy and not girl/girl.
The Bush administration let Microsoft off the hook on anti-trust issues.
Now Bill suddenly is doing something that the judgementalists like politically.
In the world of politics and power everything comes at a price.
nice flame, kid, but if you think that it's appropriate to make people second class citizens, then you're no one I want to talk to. Denying homosexuals marriage is the same thing as denying african-americans the right to vote.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I know all of you linux freaks hate bill gates and microsoft but try and tell me that Internet Explorer and WordPad...and hell, MS Paint aren't the some of the best apps offered today!! You all should be so lucky that a man such as Bill has come along to bring us the joy that is Microsoft! Microsoft is the best company around and your just jealous you aren't doing as well as Microsoft or Bill. Get Windows XP, the best OS EVER! http://www.microsoft.com Your Pal, Bill Gates Jr. bgatesjr@gmail.com
High-tech companies generally take the lead on gay/lesbian rights issues for reasons that should be obvious.
High-tech companies that need the best and brightest can't afford to use sexuality as a basis on which to discriminate, and prefer to be seen as friendly to minority rights, because they want the people who have the ability to add to their market share to apply with them regardless of who they sleep with.
I think that the anger I see around here directed against anyone who might be seen as favoring gay/lesbian rights is from lus3rs who got rejected by all of the high-tech companies they applied to and want to blame "affirmative action" or "ANTI-CHRISTIAN" discrimination rather than their lack of discernable technology skills and zero to negative IQs.
Granted, I enjoy M$ bashing too, but deciding to do *no* thing instead of the *right* thing (and you could easily make the point that this isn't something Microsoft should be involved in- I'd refute it, but you could make the point) isn't Microsoft being bad.
Pulling their political support in mid-stream has to be considered action, not non-action. The time for them to decide not to get involved was before they started lobbying, NOT because they were threatened with a boycott with a roughly zero change of effectiveness by a Religious Right crazy.
The bill lost by one vote. Is it possible that the word getting around that MS was pulling the support made a one-vote difference?
MS changing sides at the worst possible time can be seen as "Man bites dog". THAT is news.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Obviously, they have their eye on the contract of 2010 ala:
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/excerpts.php
Here is another reason for homosexual couples not to marry: evolution.
If you believe in evolution then there is no way gay genes would make it to the next generation. (Except if they acted against their nature and had intercourse with the opposite sex.) So, it is a learned behavior or a mutation in the current generation. If it is a learned behavior or a mutation then why as a species would you encourage this behavior?
I know you won't like that reason, but it is one that is valid.
Does not mean you support every little nuance of the agenda and every little bill that comes along.
I wish corporations would stay completely out of politics at all times.
HP holds seminars and hands out panphlets that tell every one of their emplyees exactly how they should for "For the good of the company". It's utterly disgusting.
Corporations have no buisness (NPI) advocating for or against any legislature whatsoever. In fact, I'd like to see legislation that made it illegal for them to do so.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Playing the Devil's Advocate here, I'm not -1 fucked up and by no means am I advocating incest or eugenics.
The main logical reason that siblings/close family members are prohibited from marrying and even having sex is that any offspring resulting from such a union would be more than likely to be unfit. Close inbreeding tends to diminish genetic diversity and increase homogenisity. That is, they would have a higher than average probability of having a rare genetic disorder. Hemophilia in the royal families of Europe is one example. The royal families of Europe have been interbreeding with each other for centuries, and there are not a whole lot of royal families. Since everyone has a common ancestor if you trace far enough back, some amount of mating with relatives has to be acceptable. I also add that cousins are allowed to marry in some states.
As for moral reasons, these unfit offspring are a burden upon society and the family. It is also a burden upon the resultant offspring.
Now, if the reason that we prohibit close family members from having sex is to protect the health of resultant offspring, and people are okay with this, than logically we should be able to prohibit a pair of carriers for some nasty disease, (hemophilia, tay sachs, etc...) from reproducing as it would produce unfit children.
Since homosexual relationships would not result in offspring, the aforementioned logical and moral reasons against incestual relations would not apply.
In truth, I think that a large portion of the incest taboo stems from the ewwww factor, an innate biological drive to not mate with siblings, but that's theorectical. In support, I offer the observation that in many (most?) mammalian herd/pack species, the male leaves the group it was born in and overtakes or joins another, whereas the females tend to remain in the group they were born into. This bioligical drive would reduce incest and unfit offspring. The ewwww factor is enough for me to not consider incest.
In contrast, there are many known cases of royal siblings marrying and producing offspring. One notable example is that of king Mausollos of Caria and his sister/wife Artemesia. They built the famous Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, one of the seven wonders of the world. The royal families of Europe is another example of incestual marriages, though they were more often cousins than siblings.
Nice Marmot
Nice troll. Tell the full fucking story. The Supreme Court of India actually sent a notice to the Central government and the Delhi state government questioning the constitutionality of a law that punishes homosexuality. It's almost the opposite of what you say. Here's a source.
The story was rejected.
Just venting, but -- to the moderator who decided that the story was newsworthy only after it was too late to do anything about it -- thanks for nothing! Judging from the comments above, it seems likely that the Slashdot community would have liked to know about this YESTERDAY.
I read through this thread, and although I see many flames and trolls I also see a lot of geeks reasoning this issue in a logical way and not accepting the standard anti-gay marriage arguments. In general this is one of the huge strengths of geeks. We think for ourselves and we are not willing to accept what the majority might think.
Myself, I think that gay marriage rights make a lot of sense. I think that if you sit down and think about this issue and put aside your prejudices then it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. I leave it to the rest of this thread and to the sites out there to help you convince yourself of this.
I am proud of my fellow geeks.
You've never actually read the Bible, or you'd realise that it isn't oral and anal sex that's condemned, but homosexuality, be it guy-guy or girl-girl. (Islam does actually explicitly teach that anal sex is sinful.)
GirlOnGirl might be fine by some extant implementations of Christianity, however the manual says...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Microsoft is a bit of a passion fingers. Maybe they want a bill which endorses anal rape between non-consenting (and often underage) companies? With whips, broken glass and upside down in a tub.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
On the contrary: at no point in my post did I state anything about my religious affiliation or beliefs. It would seem it was YOU who "arrogantly assumed" that I had no religion.
It's not my ass!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
This from the great unbiased blog (thx Slashdot crack reporting staff for vetting this one...):
:)
"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.
Sam
Kind of like the people who still work 9-5 even after a serious lottery win.
"I need to treat people fairly... let me see... how can we do this so our competitors get no advantage out of it by hiring only straights... I know, we'll get a law passed which forces everyone to hire a quota of bent people, even marriage counselling firms."
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
oh my god give it up. You're just making an ass of yourself.
though I was raised one and I go to a catholic church (I still think the ideal of christianity in it's purest form is good). What gets me is catholics that so ardently attack things that are an affront to God, yet are very selective of the things that they speak against.
:P
So Catholics (and other religions too, lets not just pick on em) want to preserve the sanctity of marriage... Wait, doesn't the Catholic church prohibit divorces? Yet an ungodly (no pun intended) amount of marriages end in divorce? So which is a greater threat to "marriage", homosexuals that want the same rights as us and don't want to be treated as second class citizens OR the free availablity of divorce?
So if the churches want to impose the laws of their God on all of the god fearing (and non-god fearing) populance then where will it end? Will they outlaw civil marriages? (I'm civily married but the catholic church doesn't recognize that either - can't take communion since I'm still a sinner for getting married out side the church). Will the church(es) move to outlaw divorces? Will the church move to remove civil unions? After all it is a threat to the institution of marriage to allow people to get married outside the grace of God...
I know this sounds like a logical fallacy (Slippery slope) but I'm trying to bring out a point. Religious folk are so offended by the behaviour of a few of their fellow citizens that they are willing to push through laws to prevent them their civil liberties granted by a country founded on the ideal of tolerance, however if they are so ardent about their religion why are they allowing much bigger threats go through?
I'll leave you with my first question to all the ardent catholics. What kind of birth control do you practice?
Ok... Bring on the flames....
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
"I see you are writing homophobic material. Would you like me to help you make it more perversion-neutral?"
Yes, yes, I was kidding. Mostly. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Because the U.S. is full of prejudiced, racist, intolerant, uneducated, fuckheads.
You misspelled "redneck". "Southern redneck" at that.
I hate this place. When can I move to Mars?
The more I read this, the more I wonder what in the world you read, because it certainly wasn't what I wrote. I never said anything about anything being superior to anything else. I said I wouldn't dream of walking up to an individual leaving a church and volunteering my opinion of his religion. There are a great many religious people who believe--as the individual I replied to does--that somehow he has the "right" to share his beliefs about his idea of my "lifestyle."
At the aquarium where I work we have a gay domestic couple of penguins.
Which is the real reason Microsoft withdrew their support for gay rights.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
You are right America should go back to its religious roots, that is, North American Native Paganism.
sorry I could not resist.
By the way Lynching was done by the people as well, does that make it right? Killing of the Jews in Germany was done by the people as well. Slavery was done by the people and was well within the law, does that make it OK?
It does not imply that state's can not choose to deny rights that are not covered by the constitution.
States that deny a given right to their citizens must still give "full faith and credit" to those states that do grant such a right.
I saw the AMA posting a position on something or other that was none of their damned concern either. I don't get it - I assume this is PR posturing to align the company with whatever demographics it finds advantageous, but it strikes me as ridiculous whenever I see it. They should, literally, mind their own business.
KeS
Your argument for evolution is unfortunately wrong.
Sexual variation, both physical and psycho-physiological, are the most common variations in humans. The reason? Because sexual variations are of the few physical variations that aren't life threatening. (ie. you could live without a liver, but could live as a gay person or hermaphrodite just fine).
Because they are not unadaptive to life, there is no reason to evolution throw them out of the genetic code. In fact, many hypothesis' have very adaptive explanations for such outcomes.
The sole evolutionary reason for a single persons existence is not to "replenish the earth", that is a uninformed, simplistic view influencd by modern Christian dogma (itself a simplistic view of the bible)
A while back, I also recall reading a story in a local paper about penguins being the first (only?) animal besides humans observed to engage in prostitution.
Supposedly, the penguins collected up rocks in order to build shelters for themselves - and they found a penguin accepting stones from another penguin in return for sex.
You know.. it's clear to me that America truly isn't a place of freedom anymore. It's more free than other places but this country is looking more oligarchy everyday. Wonder how long it can last until some fresh blood needs to be spilled.
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.
Atheism is not a religion.
The word "atheism" itself tells you that.
"A" means "without," and "theism" means a belief in a higher power.
a) microsoft retracts its support for an antidiscrimination bill regarding homosexuals
b)penguins, on the other hand have TEH GAY and, as if this wasn't enough, are whoring and pimping sons-of-a-bitches.
Now, folks, the penguin is a common symbol, not to say heraldic animal for what? That's right, folks, we're talking bout linux here.
Am I the only one seeing the potential for new, unprecedented trolling and flaming? Ahhh, how I love the smell of napalm in the morning....
This comment does not exist.
Iwafk(I was a foster kid)
and let me tell you the straight couples who could have kids but take in foster kids arn't normal(not nessisarily in a bad way but not nessiarily in a good one). Not beaing allowed to go out with friends at 14 is not normal(I mean at all) having bi-weekly meetings with various social agentices is not normal. Finaly, having your parrents toss you out on your ass at a very young age isn't genraly considered normal.
If there are no foster homes, you end up in whats called a residential(in MA). A residential is the bastard child of a threesome of a mental ward, a jail and a commune. If gay couples can take the kids out the system (say through guardian ship) while yess gay parrents is not normal it would be a fuck of a lot better than staying in the system.
Damn the man!
Actually, I'd far rather they have clones than adopt... Its the only decent reason I can think of for reproductive cloning.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
How's that old Heinlein quote go? "It takes about twenty years for a liberal to become a conservative, without changing a single belief?"
:-)
(Maybe more than twenty years in this case, but you get the idea...
iSKUNK!
Gay Bill Abandons Microsoft Rights
With all their beady little eyes
And flappin' heads so full of lies !
I seriously doubt it's that simple. Just because some article says it doesn't me it's true, or that it's the whole truth. 80 pastors could have approached him, but maybe the one is the only one of note.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
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.
TommyOpen Source for Open Minds
You'd think more people would recall that the founder of modern computer science was not only a homosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing), but that prosecution and persecution for his sexuality eventually led him to take his own life.
as "Funny" were laughing at you, not with you.
Tech Public Policy stuff
and this one looks almost the same. Hm...
The military and many scientists have developed chemicals which can make anyone gay. It's not a choice at all, fruitflies have been made gay, its a gene of some sort which can be turned on and off somehow. If it were a choice then no one would ever choose to be gay, theres no advantage to being gay.
Well thats too bad. No one forces you to bring your personal life to your job.
It also applies to inter-racial couples.
Considering you're on Slashdot, I'd say you'd REALLY be lucky...
I don't think the short article adds much new information, but it certainly lends a further extent of legitimacy to the issue.
It doesn't work on individuals, it works on populations. Worker bees dobnt breed but the genes still exist in bee species, because its god for the species as a whole to have them. Same with homosexuals who are smarter and more creative than general polulation. They are just more specialized humans.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
No, an idol is by definition any god that isn't God (the one whose name appears in little capitalized letters in every Bible). The golden calf was an idol, but so were Baal and Asherah (the god and goddess of two other local religions). So even if we were literally worshipping all crucifixes, that wouldn't be idol worship, since they're representations of the "correct" god. If we were to declare that one particular crucifix was unique and especially holy, though, and started to worship it rather than what it represented, that would be elevating it to the level of a (new) god and would be idol worship.
And if you read what I wrote previously, I think you'd realize that I do not believe every word of the Bible to be literal truth. I agree that it's been changed over history, and that even just reading different translations can give you a completely different understanding as to what's an abomination and what isn't. I was simply arguing based on the assumption that it all is truth, though, because that's what conservative Christians do. Saying "the Bible is inconsistent and irrelevant" is easy for them to dismiss, but using it to support one's own views might get them thinking. But perhaps I'm just overly optimistic.
Kind of like having the freedom to yell fire in a theater right? It should be totally legal - afterall we have free speech in this country. Yes, it could be abused, but thats my pergoative...
Bill's boyfriend must have broken up with him.
No it's not. It's all a matter of definition, which is the point you are missing here.
I am not saying gay people shouldn't be able to unite and live together. Even have certain advantages like families do. But these two SHOULD be different cathegories. You just can't take the rules from one case and apply it to the other one. New rules have to be defined for such an union.
Likewise, while I can accept such an union between gay people, I honestly don't see a reason why they should be able to adopt kids. A kid should have a paternal and a maternal figure at home. I am sure gay people can teach lots of things to kids. But they can't teach some things that would take a person from the opposite sex to do so.
Now should the same rules that apply to a marriage between a man and a woman apply to a gay couple? No, because it's plainly not the same case.
Do I respect gay people? As far as I am concerned I always did. Do I think their situation should be promoted as a state of complete normality? No, but then again people can disagree with me.
Btw, I am not making someone a second class citizen by making a distinction where a distincion exists. And most importantly I have never had anything to say to the gay people I know.
diegoT
This should be a non-issue.
People are people. If an individual has full rights (as a homosexual individual does), rights cannot be removed because of grouping, as in a couple.
Homosexual relationships need to be recognized as valid, and until then the US will simple have people emmigrating and traveling to places where their relationship is recognized by the Gov't.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
According to your theory, we can NEVER assign any statistics, since each of the 290 million people who live in USA are different.
If everyone thinks like you, nothing can be statistically forecasted.
In the real world, nothing is truly homogeneous. But we can make assumptions of common attributes between individuals among a population such that statistics can be drawn meaningfully.
In the credit card industry, banks spend millions to run analyses on millions of cardholders because statistically there's a predictive pattern of customer behavior, even though each cardholder has a unique financial situation as well as financial self-discipline.
The majority is not always right, and neither is the minority. Just like you I vote my conscience, and my conscience says that homosexuality is a sin
OK, so their are at least two possibilities. One, homosexuality is "wrong" for some reason and two homosexuality is not "wrong." If you are right, great, don't have sex with people of the same sex and you're just fine. Why do you need to pass a law to force others to follow your religious beliefs? OK, now assume you are wrong (you are not perfect you know, you could be wrong right?) In that case you are trying to pass a law to enforce your preference in behaviors upon everyone else. we're talking about behaviors that do not affect you in any way. It would be like a powerful religious lobby passing a law that says women must wear shoes at all times, even in private. It is zealots making religious choices for individuals. You do realize several parts of the biblical teachings of Jesus specifically tell you not to try and keep others from sinning right?
So basically you are defying your own religion to try to force others to follow one of its precepts. Hello hypocrite.
Just like you I vote my conscience, and my conscience says that homosexuality is a sin
:-)
;-)
Well let's see... if you really want to be so short-sighted, here are some more things for you to preach:
1. 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
Let's just start discriminating people with different beliefs, or force them to become christians, pretending to have the one and only divine answer.
2. '...Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above...'
Isn't Jesus supposed to be at his Father's side in heaven? Then why do we see statues and crosses all over the place in every church? Isn't that a conflict with the 2nd commandment?
3. 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
I guess most of us can adhere to that one
4. 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
You see quite a lot of christians, a lot of those who are so much against those 'sinful gays', who don't seem to mind this one.
5. 'Honor your father and your mother.'
Seems easy enough, but still I see a lot of elderly people who are being put into homes, and neglected by their nice, church-going children.
6. 'You shall not murder.'
no comment on this one...
7. 'You shall not commit adultery.'
I still haven't seen any mention of gay people until now, but quite a lot of people cheat on their partners, while still claiming to be christians.
8. 'You shall not steal.'
obvious enough...
9. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
It would be a very nice world if there would never be a false accusation, but hey, it's not like that's a reality
10. 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.'
In this one, a male/female servant is even put on the same level as his wife, when it comes to how bad it is...
As far as I remember these 10 commandmends are very important in christianity, and yet people don't make too much fuss about most of them. Homosexuality on the other hand, scares them, and therefor they hate it so much.
I rather let everybody make their own decisions. If someone discovers (or decides, for those of you who don't believe they just ARE gay) that they are gay, they won't start harrassing straight men/women, but instead find other people in the same situation, so you can stop being afraid, and remove the plate from the back of your pants
My wife and I know a gay man, but why would I feel uncomfortable shaking his hand or talking to him? He's a nice person...
I guess they aren't more likely to try and seduce you, than that you are likely to try and seduce a lesbian...
Hmm, maybe this comparison isn't that great
Marriage is a term that applies to a union between a man and a women.
To me marriage means "two things joining to become one." That is its original meaning and is still used in other contexts. I find the concept of marriage to be unethical. It forces people who do not want to be together to be together for convenience and often leads to people taking each other for granted or believing they no longer have to put any effort into a relationship.
Within the Judeo-christian tradition it was originally a property transfer as the woman belonged to her father and was transferred to a husband. This is horribly degrading and something most people would prefer to forget about the practice.
All of that, however, is immaterial to the issue. In the U.S. on both a federal and and state level the word marriage is a legally defined term. Thousands of laws have been written that rely upon that legal term. For example, if you die, the law says in absence of a will your property transfers to the person to whom you are married. The fight is about same sex couples being given all the same legal protections as mixed gender couples without having to pass thousands of laws on both a federal and state level all around the country.
Although it may offend your sensibilities you have to remember that marriage is a legal entity in this country, performed by the state and does not necessarily involve a religion at all. If you did not want it to be a legal concept and wanted it to remain solely a religious term you should not have passed laws regarding and including it. The U.S. government is bound to treat all religions equitably. If some say gays can marry, passing laws to stop it is very much a violation of that equality.
This is a fight over legal rights and the term "marriage" is necessary to acquire those rights. The argument you use is one that has been put forth by people that know this, but want to muddy the issue and deny rights to people out of spite, religious indignation, puritanical interventionism, and hate. Please stop buying into that argument.
In case you didn't notice, your statement is telling people it is morally wrong to say what is and isn't morally wrong. Therefore, by your own definition, your statement is unethical.
First, look up moral and ethical in a dictionary so that you are clear on the definitions. Next, you are right. I mis-phrased my statement. What I meant was "But just because most people are unethical and want to force other people to do what they think is morally right (as if they were some sort of authority) instead of allowing them to make their own judgements."
I agree completely that they should be able to say anything they damn well please, just not pass laws forcing people to abide by their beliefs about what is right and wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
Make your choice and defend it: are gay marriages good for society as a whole or bad? Be precise in your definitions and show evidence one way or the other to demonstrate your assertions.
That is an irrelevant point. Is drinking good or bad for society? Are cheeseburgers good or bad for society? Is the jewish faith good or bad for society?
Answer: everyone must decide for themselves and legislators had better have overwhelming and compelling reasons to pass law banning homosexuality or any of the above. I'm pro-choice about nearly everything simply because I'm willing to take personal responsibility for my decisions. I'll decide what is right and wrong and good and bad for society and myself. Excess laws are welcomed by people who want someone else to decide for them, or want to decide for everyone else. That is damnably unamerican.
Genetically speaking homosexuality is an advantage in harsh environments with strong familial units and in overpopulated environments. They are an advantage in the first because (assuming homosexuality is a recessive genetic predisposition) it brings two extra able adults to protect and care for children, while still passing on the trait through the recessives in the homosexual person's siblings. In an overpopulated society (like the one we live in now) anything that reduces the population growth benefits society.
You are (deliberately?) missing the point.
The previous poster had a point? I thought they just wanted to force me and everyone else to adhere to particular precepts of their religion while completely violating others themselves.
I agree that being black is not a choice but being homosexual is. If it isn't a choice, then it must be a mutation in the current generation, because it wouldn't get passed on!
Have you ever actually talked to a gay person about being gay? Try it some time. They are real people. Now just for shit and grins, why don't you try to choose not be attracted to people of the opposite sex? Genetically speaking homosexuality provides an advantage in adverse conditions with strong familial bonds. It provides two extra adults to raise, protect, and provide for children (usually children of siblings who have ~25% of the same genetic make-up possibly including any recessives that make one predisposed to being homosexual.
Do you eat shrimp? According to the bible, that's http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/14.html forbidden
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.
Some down and dirty experience? Well, I'm gay. So, I think I have some real world experience with this subject.
I deal with people like you all the time. To still make comments like yours really shows how long we have to go in stomping out ignorance. You are a bigot, sir. There's no two ways about that.
You seem to still think that AIDS is the "gay disease." Well, welcome to the 1980s, here's your mullet. Gay sex doesn't make you any more vulnerable to AIDS than straight sex does. If protection isn't used, that's the risk you run.
So what if gay guys hit on you? It's not going to turn you gay. When women hit on me, I'm flattered. I'm not thinking, "Oh shit...they might turn me straight." If a conflict arises from a gay guy hitting on you, that is a problem with you, not the gay gentleman. If you aren't secure enough to handle that situation with a little couth, that's your problem.
I don't know who the hell you think you are with these "lesson[s]".
There are a great many religious people who believe--as the individual I replied to does--that somehow he has the "right" to share his beliefs about his idea of my "lifestyle."
They do have the right to share their beliefs with you... so long as you mean "speak of". It's one of those freedoms that the constitution grants us.
However, I agree that people should be able to impose their religious beliefs on you. Because that's another freedom we have: the freedom to choose our beliefs, and not have them unjustifiably oppressed. (Which is something our bible-banging government seems intent on doing).
As far as my opinion of the whole matter goes: "Gay is cool, just don't hit on me".
It doesn't make any sense to have a different kind of union for same-gendered couples. In fact I think we should destroy "marriage licenses" and replace them with domestic partnership licenses. Your ceremony is the marriage. You can get married without a license, and in terms of our state-sanctioned idea of marriage, everyone important has been appeased; the two people involved, and God. (I am not religious, mind you.)
"Do I respect black people? As far as I am concerned I always did." Just replace the class of people we're talking about with another oppressed group and you can see how bigoted your statement is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fuck that and fuck everyone you're making cowardly excuses for.
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
Problem for you is I am not talking about black people. Try to stick to this discussion without "replacing" words in what I write. It sure is easy to replace words here and there to extend the discussion in ways in which it was not meant to be extended.
If you think it is wrong to actually point out that there are differences between different situations, then you are basically being negligent about accepting those differences. Grow up and learn to "deal" with those differences rather than pretend they don't exist in the first place.
We are not supposed to be all the same, which basically means that we are also not supposed to treat all situations the same way.
diegoT
Same-sex "marriage" attempts to redefine marriage.
Your bit about "grow up and learn to deal with those differences" only underscores your bigotry. Why don't you grow up, and learn to accept those differences?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm making an ass of myself?
How so? By name calling? Well YOU did it too, so what does that make you, ASS?
How do people like you get so stupid?
I imagine someone of your limited intellect has personal experience with "making an ass of yourself"
Now shut up and let the big boys chat.
Why would a public company spend their money on pushing a bill that would tend to piss off half their customers when the outcome doesn't matter to them as a company?
TO me their getting messed up in this debate is a lose-lose situation:
1. They wasted $37M
2. They pissed off half their customers by wasting this $37M
3. They backed down
4. They pissed off the other half of their customers by backing down from a loser position
So...All of their customers are pissed off, and they are out $37M, good corporate governance!
This makes about as much sense as Sprint coming off anti-gun a few years back...
Advice to companies, stay out of politics unless the bill in question will affect your bottom line.
Dan
Atheists believe that there is NOTHING. which is a belief in itself.
Agnostics don't believe anything. Be it that there's a god or no god.
So true, it's not a religion. But it is a belief system.
The U.S. didn't become the world's sole superpower with uneducated citizens.
Yes, now how did that happen?
And there are more racists in Europe.
Err, glad to hear it?
As for 'prejudice', your statement will speak for itself.
I live in the U.S. so it is judgment, not prejudgement.
Get fucked and die.
Thanks I plan to do both, in my own time.
No, it is prejudgement, as you are incapable of quantifying your assertion.
Not true U.S. citizens average 1.3 kiloprejudi whilst Canadians only average .22 kiloprejudi. Europeans all together average only .37 kiloprejudi. I think the statistics are pretty clear.
P.S. you're an idiot.
...hit submit too soon. Here's the post more nicely formatted:
/.name. To me, the words and ideas surrounding marriage, especially the word itself, involve a man and a woman and a blessed form of covenant.
In my experience, there is the power of choice. There will always be different choices based on morality, ethics and society. Once one amasses enough choices, one gains a world view - and thereby, a world in which to live.
To me the issue of gay marriage is a non-issue. I am religious, despite the lingual terror of my
To those of you who claim that marriage was first a civil union, let me ask a historical question: Did e.g. the Saxons, or the vikings have marriages between men? Did their society award any particular status and word to same-sex promises of that kind?
The reason I ask is because the word 'marriage' is, among other things, a concept. I will never consider two men or two women to be married, to be in wedlock or to have been joined in holy matrimony. All of this is because the concepts are both defined by and tied into religions that mean exactly one thing by it, and one thing only.
I fail to see how slapping the word 'marriage' onto same-sex unions can benefit anyone. It's a mostly religious term, and, as a matter of simple linguistic household, shouldn't be redefined willy-nilly. I don't run around redefining words such as strong, courageous, friend, priest, bigot, nature, nurture, science, coward, cowboy, soldier, or king based on whether or not I want those words to apply to me.
If homosexuals are particularly in vogue one day, I don't claim to be a homosexual, because that term doesn't apply to me (cue all the comments on homophobia being a sign of latent homosexuality).
If we are at all to have a common language - and one that can be used by us all, we can't be idly permissive about the meanings of words. I do not consider the unions of men nor of women to be religious in nature, and therein lies the problem: A religious term is being usurped by those who clearly not fall under it. It is being used to describe a relationship inherently forbidden by the same religions whence the term sprang.
This may be scandalous of me, but I just don't mind any of the benefits bestowed upon married couples to be bestowed upon gay couples also. I would have wished that the more vocal people among the gay would have the courage to choose their own words - to stand for what they so staunchly believe is right, if they believe Christianity to be so wrong.
But you live in the country whose gov't conducted racist policy. If you say the gov't is to be charged, you're still liable for it, as a taxpayer.
Excellent. That's what I've been trying to say. If anyone is responsible, it should be the taxpayers at large and not a specific racial group.
So basically, you have no problem with enforcing the law, even it it could cause another civil war in this country.
You think restitution would lead to civil war? I beg to differ.
Its not discrimination if it redresses previous wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group.
That statement is ridiculous and untrue. Maybe you should read it again. That line of reasoning could be used to support genocide.
So basically, you're against discrimination when it impacts your racial group, specifically your least intellectually qualified individuals.
Uh, no. I'm against ALL discrimination. Skin color and race should be completely transparent. Affirmative action violates this ideal.
And you don't care if the United States can function after such legal judgements are rendered. Which makes you the ultimate selfish individual.
First of all, I don't see such a method as being a fatal blow to the U.S. economic system as you do. Second, I fail to see how it is selfish if I stand to gain nothing.
Do you follow the rest of those parts of the Bible to the letter?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
why the hell does ANY corperate body have ANY say in how a bill gets voted?? YOU vote this senators in, they represent YOU. corperate policy should have nothing to do with it.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Who are we kidding. "Dreaming" is more likely.
Open Source for Open Minds
Rigth so let's make murder legal, because otherwise It'd just be inforcing my belifes on others. All law is someone's morals.
You do have a good point. The whole speck in your brother's eye / plank in your eye thing. I think a lot of Christians push hard on this one, because (As far as I can tell) there really are not mainline groups out there pushing for acceptance and tolerance of murder. It's quite natural to push harder in areas you feel you are loosing, No?
On a completely different note, I would be interested in seeing which teaching you are reffering to, if I am in error (I'm certinally not perfect), I'd appreciate more detail. (I do not mean to "call you out" on this, if you are right then you will have made me aware of something I am currently not)
with that edit done, I agree
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
At least two Troll mods, the first of my posts in about a month to be modded Troll at all. The first day I've been modded down overall for the day (two troll, one flamebait, one interesting, one insightful) in about a year. Hit a nerve?
I guess at least two somebodies care enough about the post to mod it down - even if they don't get beyond "Religious homophobe! Kill!" - so I guess it at least got read.
Atheism is a religion. No robes, no stained glass, no incense, still a religion. Learn to live with that fact, 'coz modding it Troll won't change it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Earlier you jumped on some guy because you said _he assumed_ something you said. Now you are doing the same thing by assuming I was referring to name calling. (When I was not) You have as much coherence as a seventies psychedelic movie. My grandmother had a better grasp of argumentation and logic than you when she was 6 years old.
Get a life
Whine and complain? Nope... just going to call you a fucking bigot and be done with it. The Ku Klux Klan would be proud to have you as a member.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Point 1 : Sorry, I don't have a Merriam-Webster. Apparently, that's the only correct source. How you misconstrued my comments as bigoted leaves me saying, "Hummmmunnawhat?" I have not made any comments against any group of people whatsoever.
Point 2: "Innocent people"? What exactly does that mean? Are you implying that gay people aren't innocent simply because they are attracted to the same sex? If so, who are these "innocent" people to whom you're referring? Surely you must mean the millions of straight people in this nation. All those "innocent" straight people having pre-marital sex and popping out babies at the age of 15. But hey, at least you know that baby wasn't a result of anal sex.
Point 3: HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) is spread through FLUID exchange, not just blood. Having unprotected sexual intercourse with anybody who is infected makes you vulnerable. You are no more vulnerable through anal sex than you are through vaginal sex. Also, there are wonderous products on the market that take care of the lubrication factor.
Point 4: I didn't say I condone sexual advances in the workplace. I was merely making a point on sexual advances in general. This is where you sound like a bigot. You seem to think that only gay people are the ones who would make said advances in a work environment. When you wouldn't hire an entire group of people based on whatever characteristic because you "don't want to spend [your] days" with them, you are prejudiced against that group.
How you think I am disappointed because you don't hate me is beyond me. I have no desire to have a beer with such an ignorant person. Thanks for the offer, though. Tolerance is part of the whole prejudice issue. You may not condone the lifestyle, but you should recognize and respect the fact that it exists and there's nothing you can do about it. By saying you don't tolerate the behavior, you are implying that everything you said about giving me a beer and working with me is a bold-faced lie. Your implicative methods of argumentation are insulting. You have not made one solid point that I can not refute based on the grounds that you sound like nothing more than an ignorant ass. Your "facts" are poorly founded and unresearched, at best. I would not be surprised if you say these things merely to get a response, but you are making yourself sound like an ignoramus.
Agnostics refuse to take a position.
I think you would be less confused if you considered the difference between believing something on credible evidence (for instance, I believe Australia is a continent and does in fact exist, despite never having seen it for myself) and a belief (aka faith) in something without evidence (god/gods, unicorns, fairy dust, etc).
You should really check out Jonathan Miller's A Brief History of Disbelief. It's an excellent documentary on the subject and you'd probably learn something.
The Farewell Tour II
The first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You have no right to say anything, nor does anyone else. The government (federal, mind) just isn't allowed to pass a law against you doing it. The side effect is that in general you can say whatever you want, but it isn't protected in the constitution.
Of course this is the same amendment that people have misrepresented to mean that religious organizations can legally not pay the same taxes levied against non-religious corporations of similar size and income.
The Farewell Tour II
You have no right to say anything, nor does anyone else.
From Wikipedia:
The Ninth Amendment, particularly when taken in conjunction with The Tenth Amendment, emphasizes that the Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights from the government to the people, but a reminder that it merely enumerates some of the most important powers not granted to the government.
Because the Constitution is a document describing the powers of government, the language it uses will be government-centric. We do have those rights, specifically because the government cannot regulate them. (Unless, of course, everyone goes batshit and amends that out of the US Constitution, but that's another matter entirely.)
Also, most of the rights it affords citizens may not be abridged by state governments either. (Amendment 14, Section 1). Of course, that's only if you interperet the Constitution by the word and letter.
Of interesting note is the way that the Supreme Court decided to interpret the 9th amendment.
But then again, our government hasn't ever worked for us. Even when our nation was in its infancy, we had problems and arguments over the document. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had entirely different views on what the constitution said--and they both wrote it. Alexander Hamilton (and, of course, the almighty dollar) eventually won that one.
That makes no sense. There has got to be a better reason (layoffs? poor performance?) that you were fired.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Not explicitly sinful but forbidden:
o wse&QR=5560&dgn=4
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=br
4. It is permissible for the husband to have intercourse with his wife in her vagina in whatever manner he wishes, from behind or from the front, on the condition that it is in her vagina, which is the place from which a child is born. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will" [al-Baqarah 2:223]. Jaabir ibn 'Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Jews used to say that if a man had intercourse with his wife in her vagina from behind, the child would have a squint. Then this aayah was revealed: Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will" [al-Baqarah 2:223]. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "From the front or from the back, so long as it is in the vagina." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 8/154; Muslim, 4/156).
5. It is not permissible for the husband under any circumstances whatsoever to have intercourse with his wife in her back passage. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will" [al-Baqarah 2:223]. It is known that the place of tilth is the vagina, which is the place from which one hopes for a child. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "He is cursed who has intercourse with women in their back passages." (Narrated by Ibn 'Udayy, 1/211; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Adaab al-Zafaaf, p. 105). This is because it [anal intercourse] goes against the fitrah [natural inclinations of man] and is an action which is revolting to those of a sound human nature; it also causes the woman to miss out on her share of pleasure; and the back passage is a place of filth and dirt - and there are other reasons which confirm the fact that this deed is haraam. For more information see Question #1103.
You know what's really wrong with this picture?
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.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
The Civil Union Act took effect yesterday in New Zealand. I'd like to congratulate all those who 'tied the knot'.
I'm quite proud that we managed to get this though despite the expected fundamentalist fist waving.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
I'm somewhat of a right-winger, and, hold on to your hat folks, this is just wrong. People are people, and whether you agree with their lifestyle they have the RIGHT to be who and what they are. Supporting a bill PROTECTING someone from discrimination is a good thing all the way around for humanity. Pulling your support sends the wrong message to everyone.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Atheists don't believe in a god. Agnostics don't know about god.
Indeed, one definition of agnosticsm is claiming that it is impossible to ever know whether there is a god or not, which is a positive belief, unlike atheism.