Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Pushes For Gay Marriage In Washington State
New submitter plsenjy writes "An article in the Atlantic outlines how Microsoft Corp. has submitted its support for a Washington State provision allowing gay couples to marry. Citing the company's inability to compete for top talent in the face of discrimination, Microsoft joins other firms such as Nike and Vulcan to effectively change moral policy from the top-down."
I am glad to see Microsoft taking this position.
Why?
Because it is ridiculous when people try to control how others feel and who they love, especially when it really doesn't concern them. What we have now is people that are threatened by the idea of someone, oh my god, loving another person!
I have had my fair share of gayness. While I personally like women, some guys are really hot. I'm not afraid to say that, and it's nice to kissy kiss other good looking mens while out. I have also had relationships with transwomen and ladyboys, and let me tell you this - when it comes to sex, nothing beats ladyboys! They look smokingly hot but since they have been males previously, they also know all the tricks. It's been the best sex I've ever had, and I'm happy to get another round in bed with a good ladyboy. And I'm not even kidding - try it. It's good to enjoy life before you die.
I also have a friend who is gay, but due to his country actually having laws that ban men-to-men love, suffers from it. Awesome guy, and really friendly.
Of course, US is a country of religious nut jobs, with all the "in god we believe" bullshit. It's accepted to show brutal violence on TV while natural things like sex is forbidden! And god forbid if there happens to be a nipple...
Quit copying Google, and get some original ideas, Microsoft.
(Seriously though, more companies should be fighting for their employees.)
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
This is another indication of how much power corporations have today.
It is a shame we need big companies to take the initiative in social reform - what happened to politicians working for the people?
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
Do any large corporations/companies push AGAINST gay marriage? Or are they either for or quiet?
Can't wait to hear how the usual zealots distort this one.
Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words that we are bigots. Find a definition of the word 'marriage', or heck the equivilent word in any human language, older than a hundred years (or fifty) that includes two men or two women. Yes some definitions do include more thab one woman and one man.
Which of the benefits of marriage are they wanting? Really. Unless children are unvolved there ain't any that civil unions couldn't provide other than using it as a wedge to drive religion farther out of the mainstream of society. Considering who pushes both concepts seems to have a LOT of overlap in membership, is it wrong to suspect an agenda?
As far as I'm concerned people can do what they want in the privacy of their own home. And I will even go for tolerance, but only up to a point. However what is being demanded isn't tolerance but acceptance. But I refuse to say 2+2=5. Homosexuality is a mental defect, albeit a minor one in the bigger scheme of things. They should NOT be given the ability to form family units and adopt for example. And before ya mod me into oblivion consider this: We are supposed to be believers in evolution, right? If you don't like my term of 'defect' for someone who takes themselves out of the gene pool please supply a better term.
But whan really gets so tiring is this tendency of homosexuals, when they come out, is to make their mental abberation the central defining aspect of their lives, and to demand any and everyone not only tolerate it but accept it with open arms. Hell, I only TOLERATE progressives, I certainly don't ACCEPT em and since 99% of gays are also progs........ you guys made my shitlist long before my gaydar went off.
Democrat delenda est
Well, they are trying to entice apple fanbois to switch to Microsoft. This is a logical marketing move
Corporations are not people and do not deserve the same rights to free speech.
Wait... did you say in *favor* of gay marriage? Oh-ho, well carry on.
I just can't put my finger in it.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I don't expect to see much of the "Corporations + politics = bad" sentiment in this thread, because, "hey, they're doing something I agree with"
The Slashdot Double-Standard will be in full effect.
No love for the poor people though as Microsoft rolls out the Avoid The Ghetto App! Now it'll be interesting to see what ruffles more feathers... supporting gay marriage or the "racist" avoid the ghetto app :)
gasmonso ReligiousFreaks.com
There is a reason why AIDS was originally called GRIDS in the 80's.
Who gives a flying F about what corporations think about morality laws? Except maybe politicians that are getting their pockets filled with cash.
Seriously, corporations should not be able to lobby at all - at all about anything. Corporations should acknowledge that their right to exist and operate within a given geo-political region is a privilege. They operate at the pleasure of the people and the privilege to operate can be taken away by the people.
How do we the people change things so that we, not corporations, rule the country?
Those Micro$oft bastards are trying to abuse their operating system monopoly to gain monopoly control over....
uhhh... marriage? Waitaminiute...
Google tries their best not to be Evil.
Microsoft tries their best to be Evil.
I guess it's true what they say. Nobody's perfect.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
OMG a corporation doing something for the public good {besides selling us widgets we need}. It's sad, but this. is. news. It really shouldn't be. This is how they should normally act. They should all use their influence to make the world better, not worse.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Nope, I'm pretty sure the point you just made is bullshit.
Repeat after me, correlation is not causation.
Hell, I only TOLERATE progressives, I certainly don't ACCEPT em and since 99% of gays are also progs........ you guys made my shitlist long before my gaydar went off.
I guess it was really hard for you to justify automatically hating homosexuals right up until the point that you could say "99% of gays are also progs." Then I bet it was really easy for you to say you hate them not because they're gay but because of their political alignment (that you forced upon them).
Well done. Well done. Say, have you ever considered that they're also human beings with different needs than you? That they just want to be recognized the same way you are by your government that supposedly espouses equal rights?
Homosexuality is a mental defect, albeit a minor one in the bigger scheme of things.
A mental defect you say? Are you aware that the method by which we communicate right now could not have been possible without the progress of one man who had such a mental defect (in more than one way)?
Take all your political bullshit and leave. This is about the rights of human beings. Not "being progressive" or "saying 2+2=5" but about respecting your fellow citizens the same fucking way they respect you.
My work here is dung.
Microsoft has, for a very long time, been supportive of LGBT folks. Microsoft's benefits have, for a very long time, fully covered domestic partners at the same level as spouses. Microsoft supports GLEAM -- Gays and Lesbians At Microsoft -- and openly supports GLEAM marching in Seattle's gay pride parades.
And it isn't just some corporate PR sham. I've worked at Microsoft since 1997, and have worked with almost a dozen gay/lesbian folks, who were out and happy at work.
They want to legalize it so that in the Windows 8 EULA they can legally marry anyone, and if you install another OS it'll be considered cheating and they can divorce you and take half your stuff!
It's a new form of vendor lock-in.
Those clever bastards.
Does this mean those religious folk that oppose hay marriage will stop using MS products?
Shouldn't The Pacific have the scoop with this story?
If, as you say, civil unions are just as good as marriage, then why are you so adamant in insisting that homosexuals can have one but not the other?
Why don't we just abolish one completely and make the other available to both straight and gay couples? That sure would make things simple. And fair.
I am sorry that you find homosexual marriage threatening. But that doesn't change the fact that homosexuals are real people, who really fall in love, and really want all the legal/social benefits that marriage provides. You must share the world with homosexuals, whether you want to or not, and passing laws that deny important freedoms to your neighbors is flat out unjust.
I am curious....are you an American? And if so, do you actually believe that freedom for everyone is a core American value? It amazes me how many Americans, some of whom would even consider themselves patriots, work hard to deny freedom to their neighbors.
I would have modded this as I have mod points...but there is no "WRONG" mod. Get a little education: http://www.avert.org/can-you-get-hiv-aids.htm
And it is a sad state of affairs when only corporate pressure can bring the government to protect freedoms as basic and important as marriage.
Corporations should not dominate politics. This doesn't change the fact that sometimes some corporate interests actually align with the greater good of the people. This temporary alliance in no way changes the fact that corporations should not be treated as people.
Corporate domination of politics has made America effectively a Fascist nation.
In this particular case, one corporation happens to be lobbying in favor of a very important civil liberty....but ideally Microsoft would have no power to do this and ordinary people would be championing this cause through voting and letter-writing campaigns and so on.
What? I don't get the opportunity to say that very often.
This is a classic example of a strawman argument. Define your opponents position and then say it's wrong. Are you saying you can't think of a more valid example? I can. Poor you.
Why not govern individuals and legal relationships and that taxation and legal impacts (e.g. head of house hold, dependent, heir, guardian). Government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, hetero-, gay, or whatever. Let religion, secular, and for all I care labor unions, secret societies, and fan clubs define that kind of thing. Instead govern individuals (with a blind eye legally to any differentiating characteristics or demographics of the individual) and only deal in relationships where they have an impact on how individuals are governed and legal rights. Then you avoid arguments like whether or not a or b is a valid marriage and what the rights of a married couple should be compared to single folks etc. When governments start governing groups instead of individuals, dictating cultural norms, and trying to influence social belief structures you usually run into trouble IMHO.
This explains why they aren't colluding with Apple and Google, they're actively trying to poach their employees.
So now you geeks working for those evil companies like Google and Apple with the no-poach agreements know where to send your resumes, Microsoft and Nike.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The conversation you imagine doesn't happen because Microsoft never saw Jim's resume to begin with, because Jim never moved to Washington in the first place due to being unable to get legally married there. That's not a huge loss in the case of Jim particularly, but eventualy Microsoft notices that there are quite a lot of Jims, and that they're going to Google and Yahoo and so on because those companies are located in a place where Jims can marry Joes if they want. And lobbying WA to change the law is way cheaper and easier than pulling up stakes and moving down to CA.
Of course, you already knew this, and have chosen to put forth a strawman (in other words, to lie) for some reason.
Deciding what their employees THINK. I know - I live in the U.K.
There is no free speech here. Everything has to be Left wing, Marxist, or you're sacked from your job. No dissent is allowed. Most importantly, none of this Marxist bullshit was ever DISCUSSED.
Because, of course, it can't pass rational debate.
Homosexuals are mentally ill, nobody is 'born that way', homosexuals become homosexual for the same reason other people develop PARAPHILIAS. (Look it up).
Homosexuality is just another paraphilia, nothing special about it, it's still a mental illness. It still shouldn't be encouraged, 'celebrated', etc.
The very fact that all of this 'gay rights' bullshit had to be FORCED on the 99.5% of the population who AREN'T gay, should tell you something...
It's totalitarianism, and if you support 'gay rights', you are supporting totalitarianism.
Most people had no problems in the 1960s when gay men like Kenneth Williams were world famous STARS, nobody hated him and wanted to beat him up because he was gay. What people object to is not gay people, but being FORCED to pretend to agree with a bullshit ideology. In fact, the more I have to listen to this 'pro gay bullshit', the more I hate it and don't want to be anywhere near gays, in case I commit a 'thought crime' and say something that 'offends' them.
Good for you Microsoft.
:)
Sounds wrong somehow.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Is that of a pimp to his prostitutes.
Deleted
I am a devout Protestant Christian.
But also a modern progressive.
I support gay rights and gay marriage!
One side doesn't speak for all of us!
I hope you turn the law to your side!
The problem is that the government had no business getting into the marriage business in the first place.
While this may be true in terms of the religious connection to marriage, the broader question might be: Should any "domestic partnership" have different rules than single people, such as tax issues and property issues? And there are child issues as well where "domestic partnership" rules could be needed...
So maybe we should stop calling these things "marriage" legally and start calling them "domestic partnerships" legally, and leave the religion and sex out of it?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The fact that h,omosexuals look down on constant side switching (to and from being homosexual) shows that gay people are no less bigots than straight people. Things are not black and white though people love to ram people into categories.
I have people say I have a good face, which brings me more problems than I would like in this gay-tolerant society. It edges on creepy what happens... but what can I do? Reverse discrimination is the in thing nowadays. Might as well just cram myself with ice cream to protect myself much like a lot of women would do in their anologous situation.
You ugly fucks who live in your basement probably don't have that problem and will never understand it.
The thought of hanging myself at my student loan organization doesn't bug me as much when I think it might make a differ
Windows itself is pretty gay.
Yes, people tend to live places for many reasons and only one of them is where the jobs are. I would not want to live in the American south because it is so right-wing.
A place that is tolerant of sexual orentation is often tolerant of other choices.
I support equality even if it is just to piss of the Christian Right.
Oh common, I'm not kidding, they were my tags, how did this end up in a civil conversation, on slashdot ! FFS
Dual Century Programming: Yeah I know
If a man has a sex-change operation and becomes a woman, can she then marry a man? Or is that still homosexual?
And if she can't marry a man because genetically she is still a man...does that mean she can marry a woman?
Or are post-ops only allowed to marry complementary post-ops?
And who can hermaphrodites marry? Anyone but other hermaphrodites?
'Cause I was hoping to move there.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
you would have to be gay to want to code microsoft windows software anyway, so you cant blame MS for doing that.
/sarcasm
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
marry a goat - will Microsoft support me?
That is such utter horseshit. As if you had ANY way to read the mind of everyone in a poly relationship. Just like every other flavor of relationship, there are good poly arrangements and there are poor ones. It's not about partner count or gender; it's about being decent human beings and not a whole lot else. FYI, "decent" doesn't mean "heterosexual" or "monogamous."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Your argument is false. MS doesn't recruit from just the locals. I personally know someone who lived in Las Vegas and moved to Maryland to take a programming job with MS. Companies recruit from outside their state (and the country) all the time.
Read my post again. Nothing I said supports your response.
‘It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: “Marriage.” You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn't gay park it.’ - Liz Feldman
Is that of a pimp to his prostitutes.
I think I had that question on my SAT's.
... corporations can statue on moral and ethical issue, and get back-up for it from its public. Interesting country you have. I'm glad to be living far away from it.
I just don't see why gay marriage is even a big issue. It doesn't have any negative impact on our society to have two people of the same sex to get married. And it has absolutely nothing to do with finding the right resources for work. If you have the talent, and the company wants to hire, then that is how it should be.
The sociological and political reason for marriage is that it recognizes and endorses strong family bonds. Having strong family bonds promotes a stable society. That's the argument for civil marriage. Religious marriage is an almost entirely different institution. It's just that in the US, we conflate the two too often because we allow clergy to act as officiants for civil marriages. In much of Europe, civil marriage can only be performed by a judge or government official.
Whether or not you choose to believe it, yes, that does happen, though probably not in such a flippant way. I can assure you that LGBT people, like everyone else with any sense, give a great deal of consideration to the quality of life they'll have in a place before moving there. So this matter could very well factor in to a decision to apply for or accept a position.
Good talent is hard to find, and I expect Microsoft wants to remove any unnecessary barriers to getting some very talented people to work for them.
WALSTIB!
Windows is gai!
This is what entropy is for.
Gayness(MS) = Gayness(AIDS)
MS = Asexual multi-billion dollar corporation
===> Gayness(MS) = Gayness(Asexual multi-billion dollar corporation) = 0
===> Gayness(AIDS) = 0
QED.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
My argument is not false, because it doesn't rely on any assumption that Microsoft only recruits locals. Everything I said above holds equally true in other states where Microsoft has a presence but same-sex marriage is not legal.
That aside, their primary campus is in Washington, and so it accounts for the biggest percentage of the talent pool being made unavailable to them. Thus, it makes perfectly good business sense for them to lobby for legalizing same-sex marriage, and to focus those efforts on Washington particularly.
But you knew that, too.
More likely, Jim is tired of California and enjoyed Washington when he vacationed there. He's highly qualified, and wouldn't mind working for Microsoft.
But...Washington doesn't allow gay marriage, and he'd like to be married sometime in the future. Jim decides maybe he's better off staying in California.
Who is being protected by allowing two people to get a better tax return for being married?
Worse than that who is being better served by having corporations getting involved in debates such as this. If governments have no place in the bedrooms of their nation then corporations certainly have no business being there. Are we really getting to the point where every political debate is going to have corporations butting in, even if you actually agree with the argument they are making? Can't they at least leave us the illusion of having a meaningful public political debate without their interference and just stick to their usual tactic of lobbying/buying the legislative votes which is sadly all that counts in the end?
Having a sex change operation is an abhorrent perversion of nature and should be prohibited and anyone desiring such a thing is a sick individual and should be removed from society and sent to reprogramming until they are willing to adopt the gender they were born with.
Not that I in any way agree with that, but your logical argument depends on the party listening to your argument being not-crazy, which is likely not the case.
paintball
At the risk of offending, well pretty much everyone, I'll put this idea forward. This could just be Microsoft trying to win support from liberal groups in order to appear hip. Lord knows they have had many failed attempts at such in the past.
Just putting it out there.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Part of what I'm saying is I don't think marriage serves that purpose anymore. Social pressures drives marriage, not government rules promoting elevated privileges. It's pretty easy to see this in the fact that marriage and cultural rules around marriage existed long before they codified by civil governments. In my best estimation these social norms developed in response to a couple of things. First with folks being much lower on the pyramid with regards to which of our needs were being met, alla Maslow's hierarchy, the need for "teamwork" at the local level to further individual success was much stronger. Additionally, because of cultural norms that disenfranchised more than half of our population (sorry girls) and made it extremely difficult for the individual (especially of the female persuasion) to survive through their own actions unless they were exceptional in some way. With that level of disenfranchisement in place the structure of marriage was truly more important to ensuring that society continued to function. Again, because of this I believe those social pressures for marriage existed independent of government management of the institution. The idea that a government should enforce social norms is wrong and broken in my opinion and leads to much more harm than good.
Can someone who is against gay marriage please explain their reasoning?
I have never heard any logical reason that explains how gay marriage would harm society.
As far as I can recall, there are many studies showing that people in committed relationships are better members of society on average. I've never seen a study that says the reverse about same sex couples.
Also I should note that while the disadvantagement (cool new word) of women continues it is not nearly as extreme and as such they are treated much more like individuals by the government rather than some extension of their husbands...what I want is for us to continue down this path and have the government manage everyone the same as best it can. My point in acknowledging the disenfranchisement of the women as a driving force of marriage earlier in human history is to say that I think we've come far enough that now the left over vestiges of government managed marriages do more harm than good and in fact are a disservice to those women who have become less and less disenfranchised. If the men who govern other men had been enlightened enough to have not disenfranchised women in the first place then I don't think it marriage would have been as important as a stabilizing force for society but alas we evolved from a state where being bigger and stronger was better and we still carry some of that baggage.
I believe Ron Paul says it should be a state issue as opposed to a federal issue. To clarify when I used the word state I meant state as in government as opposed to state vs federal. I was trying to make a differentiation between a secular civil union and a religious marriage. I admit my view is one of semantics in some respect, but I think the word marriage is associated with religion where a civil union is a more secular term.
Now I do think that a civil union can be good for society. Beyond children it affords rights to a civil partner with respect to beneficiary rights (and others) and I think that stability in a relationship is good for stability in society. Because there are rights associated with respect to a partner I can support the idea of it being handled at a federal level because rights should not vary from state to state. I would disagree with Ron Paul that it should be a state issue.
My view is one based on the observation that many people disagree about how marriage should be defined and that the disagreement often stems from differing religious backgrounds. My solution/compromise is for the government to recognize civil union between partners, gay or straight, and to leave it to religion to determine whether that constitutes a marriage.
So can you have your legal sex changed without undergoing the surgery?
And can this be done by both hermaphrodites and non-hermaphrodites?
Only if your universe consists of SPACE, TIME, MATTER, ENERGY, and CHANCE.
Now get some more dick up your ass to maintain that TOP TALENT.
==//==
Heterosex marriage births Children.
Government regulates popular fictions as well as grime.
As a European I can only make sense of the republican efforts so far if they decided they have absolutely no hope of going against Obama so they are pulling a The Official Monster Raving Loony Party because if they don't show up for the election the won't get their card stamped but their is no point in putting someone forward who is actually sane... they are keeping them for the next election because they can't afford to waste them.
Mind you, the tories did that with Major of London election when they let Boris run and jezus christ, he won! And he still looks sane when you put them next to any of the republican candidates.
I tried to watch the debates and just couldn't. This cannot be real, it must be a very elaborate hoax on the rest of the world. Right? Right!?! RIGHT????
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
nuff said
Actually, the scenario is more like:
Jim: I've had it with my present employer and I think I'll switch jobs. Hmm...Microsoft has an opening, but I wouldn't be able to marry my sweetheart. Hey, what about this company in New York? They're doing cool stuff and I could marry my sweetheart! Win win!
And Microsoft doesn't even get a resumé.
Microsoft was cowed by a local vocal evangelical pastor into withdrawing its support for an anti-discrimination bill. The heat they got from the region and their employees was blistering. I think they learned their lesson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hutcherson#Microsoft
Finally Microsoft takes a stand I can support. Ive been waiting a long time for anything agreeable to come from Redmond.
Marriage exists in every race, religion and culture. It's a human thing, not Christian. There's not even a word for non-Christian marriage, except the one that got made up for gay people. No religion has any business defining marriage for people outside that religion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
Our superior cognitive apparatus increases our capacity for horror just as much as it increases our capacity for depth of feeling and apprehension. This is true of any technology: it can be equally effective for good as for evil.
...are coming out of the closet.
I'm only replying to this as a "public service announcement". Yes, yes, yes, you absolutely can get AIDS an other serious STDs by oral sex. You would have been correct to say "lower chance than anal sex", but not 0%.
You have a very low chance to not cause pregnancy with a condom, but not 0% chance. You have a lower chance than anal sex to get AIDS and other STDs with oral sex, but by no means 0% chance.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Does this mean the same people who harp on things like not buying girl scout cookies will now trash their Windows installations in favor of installing Linux? This could be the best thing that happened and drive 2012 into actually being the year of Linux on the desktop! I'm in favor of anything that helps push more people into giving Linux a chance, and this is a great opportunity to politicize people into giving it a chance who would ordinarily stick with Windows...
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
The problem with your view, and why Paul probably has the right idea, is that you simply aren't going to get everyone (or a majority of voters) to agree on your compromise of recognizing civil unions between partners at the Federal level, or having mandatory reciprocity between States. There's just too many religious people who think homosexuality will lead to the destruction of society or whatever, and think this issue is more important than the drug war, endless foreign wars, civil rights, the budget crisis, etc.
So, RP probably has the right idea: just let the States do whatever they want, and take the Federal government out of the equation. No, it's not idea, it's not great, but if you really think you're going to get the Bible Belt to agree on a compromise, I think you're deluded. By letting the States do what they want, like-minded states will adopt gay marriages/civil unions, and also grant reciprocity with other such states. Backwards states will ban it, and not honor any unions performed in those other states. Gay people will probably tend to migrate towards the states that are friendlier to them (as they've already been doing for the last 40 years; SanFran wasn't a haven for gays 50 years ago remember), and leave behind those other states. Eventually, we should see which approach is better, and the other side will slowly change its position.
The main thing I don't like about RP is that he wants to do away with too many useful federal agencies, namely the EPA and FDA. It's too easy for some shitty company to set up a plant spewing pollution into a river just upstream of a state border, and "The Jungle" still serves as a warning for why we need food inspection.
Why is this relevant? MS is a corporation and it should not interfere with politics. Good influence -like this initiative- implies the existence and possibly a habitual nature of bad influence.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Your logic is flawed. He never said MS just recruits from the locals... he's saying gay people don't apply to Microsoft in Richmond because they would only apply in San Francisco or Boston, et al. The argument is that MS is having trouble getting certain people to Washington, and businesses like theirs would be better served if they could competitively recruit gays to Washington.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Fuck you, you sanctimonious piece of shit.
Believing in Santa Claus is not a point in your favor.
But, it isn't 'social pressures' that should be driving the government in this situation, but the interests of the government in promoting a stable and prosperous society. Government is supposed to be keeping order and promoting welfare, not trying to make each special interest group happy. Benefits and privileges like marriage cost the state money, so they want to get the best bang for their buck.
The homosexuals I know are definitely not good for anything, from me on to world + dog. Oh look, my anecdote trumped your stupid assertion. That and it seems de rigeur for gay couples to want to have children. So, I think that kind of defeats your assertion that gays are good for population control.
Keep wasting those mod points.
-1, Truth Overload
Translation:
while:
do
echo "This is NOT a moral universe"
done
Perusing the comments here, one would think that the purpose of marriage in human society was either to make selfish adults feel good or have legal status to share benefits and finances. I submit that that is NOT the reason marriage has existed since prehistory. It exists to give children a better chance to survive and thrive. Human children do not mature for decades and societies throughout the world and throughout history have decided that it is a good idea to reinforce the natural instincts of their biological parents to nurture them. That need exists today as much as ever. It is the reason marriage is defined as the bond between a Man and a Woman. The intent is that heterosexual couples (where babies come from, in case anyone forgot) be supported in their natural desire to create a family with happy, healthy, educated children.
So, my gay and lesbian friends, I believe what you do in your bedroom is your business and you should be free to do it. However, trying to change the definition of marriage to suit your selfish desires will only weaken the primary societal institution that exists to protect children. This is why religions like Christianity are correct to defend the traditional definition of marriage. Right is on our side because we defend marriage for innocent children now and for the future.
Here's a test for you. Which is more useful to society, a proud (fill in your sexual preference) or a proud parent? One is about getting your rocks off and the other is about creating the next generation of citizens who will take care of you when you are old.
Sincerely,
A proud Christian father who was once a child
Microsoft joins the GNAA in supporting Gay Marriage.
This is Slashdot after all.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
However, you benefit from the same American South by reason of those presumed BIGOTS who enlist in the armed services to defend our way of life which includes YOUR WAY OF LIFE.
You have been benefitted from their bigotry. Can you sleep at night without medication now?
==//==
And the LORD spake unto the king of Microsoft saying, Because thou hast followed after the ways of Gomorrah, yeah, thou dost wallow in the her abominations, thy sin riseth unto heaven and stinketh before me and choketh mine angels who gaggeth and moan. Because of thy sin I shall surely smite thee: thy kingdom shall be despoiled by the kings of Linux, and thy shareholders shall writhe in anguish cursing thee for thine iniquity. Thine Office products and Windows shall be remembered no more. Thus sayeth the Lord.
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
As a Christian, I have refused to work for extremely liberal companies. I don't agree with
Microsoft's business practices, their political lobbying, nor their hiring practices. I choose
not work for them. Likewise, I am quite sure that they would ban me from employment
because I am a Christian. In this regard, the Amish have it right; today, it is quite difficult
to find a job that doesn't conflict with one's beliefs.
You're missing the point I think. I don't think social pressure should drive government. Government backing marriage doesn't have anything to do with marriage being a stabilizing force historically which is what the reply to the original post had said. Cultural context and social pressures do. Those contexts now being largely moot I think government should exit the marriage business entirely.
With regards to you comment that government is supposed to be keeping order and promoting welfare what I'm saying is that managing groups of people rather than individuals in not doing that. What does that is to limit government to core principles and apply those principles to every single individual rather than acknowledge groups in codified law and treat anyone differently. The purpose of a democratic government (IMO the only ethical form of government) should be to ensure the rights and freedoms of every individual in a society such that one individual can not impinge on another's rights, defend the state against outside attack and internal revolution from fanatical factions that don't represent the will of the people, protect the individual from the will of the mob with basic rights are threatened, and manage resources where private ownership can not effectively do so without threatening the rights of others or the stability of society (e.g. water usage on rivers, air pollution, certain infrastructure, etc.). The purpose of government in my opinion is not to endorse any specific groups agenda or spend it's time messing with things like defining marriage, or banning flag burning, or telling people how to act and think. Not that governments don't do these things it's just a bad idea and it leads to more problems and a less stable society not a more stable one. It also wastes public resources trying to manage cultural shifts and changes that are going to happen anyway. Also the government has very little impact on these things other than to speed them up or slow them down a bit (maybe a decade or two at most in relatively non-oppressive societies).
"Of course, US is a country of religious nut jobs, with all the "in god we believe" bullshit. It's accepted to show brutal violence on TV while natural things like sex is forbidden! And god forbid if there happens to be a nipple..."
Indeed, here (DK) they showed some movie on an open air (TV License) channel, with many instances of full frontal female nudity (and a few man bits), last Sunday afternoon.
Who cares.
Nudity doesn't harm children: Bad lazy parents harm children. Raise your own children damn it, don't expect society to be censored to your laziness.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
....So Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are finally going to tie the knot?
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
From Wikipedia:
Zacchaeus (Greek , "Zakchaios" Hebrew , which means pure and righteous one.[1]), according to chapter 19 of the gospel of Luke, was a superintendent of customs; a chief tax-gatherer (Latin: publicanus) at Jericho (Luke 19:1-10). Tax collectors were hated by many of their fellow Jews, who saw them as traitors for working for the Roman Empire. ...
Moved by the audacity of Jesus's undeserved love and acceptance, ZACCHAEUS PUBLICLY REPENTED OF ACTS OF CORRUPTION AND VOWED TO MAKE RESTITUTION FOR THEM, and held a feast at his house. [emphasis mine- AC]
That's when Jesus said: 'Today salvation has come to this house.'.
People who make no effort to repent are not/CANNOT be Christian. Yeah, we welcome them, but we don't condone their sin.
So Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are finally going to tie the knot, eh?
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
As soonas you show us two male (or two female) on TV in a serie fighting to mate, or a thug eating the prey he killed, maybe we can talk. Until then the violence shown on TV is much much more gratuitious than most of what you will see in nature, short of a few specie playing with their prey before the killing.
It is in the governement interrest to promote mariage and stable relationship. There *is* a compelling interrest into it which is why couple get a lower tax rate, or even regulate who get the inheritance, etc.... That is why depsite not being a monarchy anymore, we STILL have a secular mariage.
Furthermore you are wrong : *ALL* civil matter are of compelling interrest to the governement. Religion. That include birth, mariage, death, what HAD been a long time ago a fully religious domain. But nowaday it isn't anymore. I would content that religion had accapred what should NEVER had been its domain in the first place : civil matter. Religion should ONLY be the domain of the metaphysical, and of the PERSONAL faith. Once religion try to do ANYTHING of civil matter than it is empeting onto secular matter, even if some time in the past it had accapared it.
Anyway If religion Hadn't accapared all those matter to begin with, we would STILL have the debate. Because too many religious people especially the christian with their concept of Sin, are completely unable to let other people in peace. They have no concept of tolerance. Sure they have the word for it. It is even written in their book. But hey applying the word is anotehr matter, and frankly i see much too many religious people being damn more intolerant than secular/atheist/agnostic.
but these are the kind of arguments the right wing really makes. BTW, the answer, in case anyone missed it, is the child of that union. Science shows that inbreeding creates unhealthy offspring. There is not reliable evidence that children in gay couples are any worse off physically or psychologically.
For the record, I don't care two sh!ts about gay marriage. It's an issue the ruling class in America use to divide the poor so they can exploit them. I just want the issue to go away so we can get back to asking why are wages haven't gone up in 30 years.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
he supports open source marriage.
But, it isn't 'social pressures' that should be driving the government in this situation, but the interests of the government in promoting a stable and prosperous society.
I'm sorry, the part of your post where you explain how encouraging gays to form legally-recognised households leads to the destabilisation and/or impoverishment of society seems to have got mangled by Slashcode. Could you repost that bit, please? Thanks!
Mod parent way up through the roof. AC gets it and others should see this.
If it's handled by the state how does the federal government handle social security for surviving spouses? Income tax law concerning married/unioned couples?
If it's handled by the state how does the federal government handle social security for surviving spouses? Income tax law concerning married/unioned couples?
Very good questions, and unfortunately I don't have an easy answer for it. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head.
1) for SS for surviving spouses, hand more control of it over to the States. So if two gay men are married in Vermont (where it's legal), and one dies, then the other gets SS benefits, disbursed to him by the State of Vermont. If he moves to California (where it's also legal at that time, we'll assume), CA and VT will have reciprocity, so he'll continue to get those benefits, disbursed now by the State of California. But if he moves to Alabama, he won't get squat.
2) for income tax, participating states could offer a tax refund for married gay people since the federal government won't give them the proper tax status to file under, so the State will make up the difference to them. Of course, this screws the state over, so the State can withhold payments to the federal government of other taxes. Or, it can pass a law saying gay married couples are allowed to file jointly, regardless of what the IRS says, and if the IRS has a problem with that, too bad, the state government will back them in court and sue the federal government on their behalf.
Of course, this is all going to continue to cause strife between the states and the federal government, and end up a lot of legal battles, which is fine. The end point is that the country needs to break up into smaller units, so we stop having infighting over these issues. If Dixie-land and flyover country want to be backwards and restrict civil rights for certain minority citizens, and the other states can't amass enough power to overturn them, then we need to just go our separate ways. The more industrious and technologically-advanced states will be better off without them holding them back.
The prerequisite for an honest and open discussion is basic agreement on what the meaning of the terms used. Rather than ask us to accept a new type of relationship, the gay lobby is asking us to accept, and the government to enforce, a definition of marriage which denigrates the union of a man and a woman. It is a definition which is not accepted by the majority.
Even though we'd prefer gays refrain from evil, their sin is not merely personal; they're not content to leave their sexuality in the bedroom and instead want to force their view of things on the rest of us. If it was truly personal, private, then the rest of us wouldn't have a problem with it.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
In my country(.ar) marriage is defined as between two consenting adults. A year or so ago we grew up enough as a society to stop listening to the religious nutjobbery, we had a long debate and as a result the marriage law was changed. And there was much rejoicing amongst gay men and women, and amongst heterosexual supporters of the right to marry whoever the fuck you love(like me and my fiancee).
Let me tell you: heaven hasn't fallen down on our heads, the rivers fail to flow red and no frogs have been raining lately. It's not such a big deal, if you are grown up enough...
not a lifestyle
On the contrary: it is societal mores that should inform government action, never the other way around.
If you have government deciding what The People's morals should be, you are already in deep sh*t. Don't go there.