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.
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.
HOW does it affect you if two guys walk on street and hold hands?
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
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?
Not all of us subscribe to your superstition or wish to be ruled by your witch doctors.
Marriage in a secular society is a civil union, not a superstitious rite. Gays want the benefit of civil union which is a CONTRACT they are sometimes restricted from entering.
I'm not gay, but I'm certainly anti-theist. You are all Taliban under the skin, and just as you would take over society and establish theocracy, I advocate resistance to superstition.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
@jmorris42,
50 years ago, I bet you would say that you only TOLERATE seeing people of different color, but you don't ACCEPT them as actual people with the same rights as white people.
Please get the fuck out of my country! I bet you're religious too, so I hope you just kill yourself and go to hell.
--from a hetro, 30yr, white, American male.
Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words that we are bigots.
...
And I will even go for tolerance, but only up to a point. However what is being demanded isn't tolerance but acceptance.
Because you're a bigot, you are unable to see why this is a problem. You're never going to understand it, so you might as well not bother trying. It would be like explaining color to a blind man.
What is being demanded is the same rights as anyone else has - the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. You don't have to like it, and the only acceptance that is required is that they have the same rights as you do.
Marriot hotels I believe quietly supports banning it. They have some pretty deep ties to the LDS
I hope you die painfully and alone.
The problem is that the government had no business getting into the marriage business in the first place. It used to be a religious institution, until some kings decided that they didn't like the church having all that power and decided to stick their noses into it. You see, not maintaining a good separation of church and state cuts TWO ways. Not only do you have the religions meddling in government matters which should be none of their concern, but you also have the government meddling in religious areas where *it* has no business being either.
If marriage hadn't become a secular state institution, we wouldn't *need* to have this debate.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
>>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. Many species have non-reproductive members that not only endure but are actually essential to the communities / species / gene pool that they are in. I suspect you might need less belief in evolution and more discernment into the subtleties of how it works in practice over large volumes of individuals and time. In a state of nature, your neighbors very likely contain most or all of the genes you singularly express, in certain configurations it would be advantageous for you to die or otherwise not contribute to reproduction directly if it allows the greater community to procreate -- spreading your genes through themselves rather than through you. Also, genetics and social policy are tangential at best.
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
Twas a dillemma, to mod or to comment on this.
I have to say, though: Gay folks do not "take themselves" out of the gene pool. This assumption that it is a choice by older generations (my own parent's included, who can be considered middle-aged at ~50) is asnine. And I'm a spiteful, critical bastard. It is a natural evolution of overpopulation, evidenced in many of nature's societies. Learn to live with it or get off the soapbox, either way, you called it: you will be modded into oblivion. Rightfully so.
Nope, I'm pretty sure the point you just made is bullshit.
Repeat after me, correlation is not causation.
Maybe there is some benefit to the whole of humanity that some people are gay. The process of evolution must have put them here for some reason. There seems to be a quite high percentage of the population (7% ?) that are gay for it to just be some genetic aberration.
I would think someone with such a low user id would be more scientific and objective about the subject, so much for my own prejudice.
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.
Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words
Yeah, and let's start with taking back the word "gay" since it has no synonym. Nowadays if you say you're having a gay day, people think you're completely incensed over this or that injustice towards your lifestyle demographic. It's supposed to mean a carefree happiness, which is just about the exact opposite.
So because I have some condition which would lead to me being less fit for purpose for breeding and passing on my genes; sterility, bad eyesight, cerebral palsey, whatever, I should be tolerated at best and not allowed to have a family because I am DEFECTIVE and some kind of ABERRATION against $DEITY/DARWIN?
You're fortunate that our society TOLERATES your type. I'd have you LYNCHED.
Fuck you.
So you are disgusted by both, but choose to take it out on gays? Yeah, that makes sense.
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.
In short, you win the award for Biggest Piece Of Shit Of The Day.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
What does making out in public have to do with being married to somebody? When you see a guy wearing a wedding ring do you instantly imagine him having sex with his wife? After all, that's what married people do?
So what you're saying is that they ironically contribute to the continued existence of the human gene-pool by not actually contributing to it at all?
Are you sure that evolution is really supposed to work like that? It sounds rather... counter-intuitive.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
It's not a double standard. Corporations + something bad = bad. Corporations + something good = good. "Something" is often "politics", and that something is often "bad". In this case, it is not. You've attempted to reduce the "Corporations + bad politics" half of the equation to "corporations + politics". I'm pretty sure if corporations only did good things, 99% of peoples' complaints would go away. Corporations were originally required to serve the public interest, or their charter would automatically dissolve.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
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.
Basis for this statement?
Sounds like you believe the lies of the LDS. No, the Justice Dept. can't do anything to religious institutions being discriminatory. The First Amendment ensures that.
Really? Basis for this statement too?
Subtle NAMBLA troll? How much did you pay for the account?
I'm not sure that it is a double standard. Corporations--believe it or not--are supposed to exist for the public good. It used to be that that meant more than just "sell products that people like enough not to go out of business." Insofar as the corporations are serving what I consider to be the public good, why should I oppose them? If they are not serving the public good, the reasons to oppose them should be crystal clear.
I do believe "corporations + politics = bad," for the same reason that I believe a dictatorship is bad: Even if it is going great now --think of how much good a benevolent and insightful dictator could do--there is no guarantee it will be good tomorrow. If all corporations ever did was promote the public good, I'd love for them to be involved. I think it is an admirable goal. Unfortunately, we all know otherwise.
"Corporations + politics = bad" is a safety net, it is the broad-stroke cut, it is the recognition of the fact that one bad apple spoils the bunch. It is the utterly unnuanced opinion. I for one would love to take a more nuanced opinion, but unfortunately nuance tends to turn into loophole and get abused. It's safer this way.
So yeah, my general position is that corporations should be kept out of politics. They should not have free speech rights. They should not be able to donate to political campaigns or set up or participate in PACs or any other process intended to influence governance. But I'm also not going to give a shit if Microsoft wants to support gay rights, because my goal was never to keep corporations out of politics -- my goal was to ensure corporations create and promote public good or at least do not harm it (and yes, I realize that evaluation is subjective). Keeping corporations out of politics was the means, not the end.
Double standard? Maybe. I don't see it that way.
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.
As far as I know, the only group seriously in favour of group marriages are some of the more fundamentalist Mormons. They're not much for gay marriage though.
So when you say "they" you mean... people who disagree with you?
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.
I've been married for almost 14 years now. The interesting thing about marriage is this:
The entire ceremony -- all of it, the food, the tables, the dresses, the rings, the suits, the flowers, the guests, the vows -- means absolutely nothing at all. Nothing.
The actual marriage is when you sign the certificate and it gets countersigned and witnessed.
So the whole kerfuffle boils down to "we don't want gays to sign a piece of paper".
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Hey, jmorris42, question for you.
Is this thread, and the sound thrashing you are receiving, feeding your persecution complex like you wanted?
"After all, that's what married people do"
Apparently you're not very familiar with married couples. ; )
1. Homosexuals can still have heterosexual relations, and many homosexuals have biological children. So your attempt to co-opt science to confirm your bigotry fails.
2. The psychiatry and psychology communities stopped viewing homosexuality as any kind of mental or sexual defect decades ago. You can't justify your bigotry that way either.
3. The United States guarantees equal protection under the law. Your attempt to limit the definition of marriage to justify your bigotry fails.
I guess we're kind of left with you just being a bigot.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What? I don't get the opportunity to say that very often.
Until 2002 Cracker Barrel has this in their official HR policy:: "It is inconsistent with our concept and values, and is perceived to be inconsistent with those of our customer base, to continue to employ individuals in our operating units whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values.”
That funny feeling in his pants when he sees a muscular fella, I suspect.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
While its hard to clearly separate religious and government institutions that existed before the adoption of the norm of church/state separation in the host society (which really begins in the modern era), marriage historically was largely governed principal by general, rather than any special ecclesiastic, law even in the Christian West through the early part of the Middle Ages, was performed under local customs that often predated the local adoption of Christianity, and didn't involve the clergy at all; during the Middle Ages, the Church became involved, first by having clergy present as witnesses (though still, for some time, prohibiting marriage inside the sanctuary of a church), and later -- as the Church acquired a role as a kind of "international government" in Europe, through prescribed rites and an active regulatory role.
It is more defensible to reverse this to say "if the Church hadn't become a quasi-governmental entity and expanded its area of regulation into marriage and other traditional areas of government control, we wouldn't need to have this debate."
The idea that marriage was an institution of the church before it was an institution of government governing the distribution of property is nearly as historically inaccurate as the idea that it is some kind of universal truth that marriage has (prior to recent years) historically always been between one genetic male and one genetic female.
I also wonder what rights they actually want.
The right to get fucked by the IRS? Married couples pay more in taxes with two incomes. Unmarried couples pay less, because they can file separate.
The right to share insurance? Large companies like MS already allow this.
The right to adopt? I don't have a problem with this, but hell it's so hard to adopt a child now for a married couple.
I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but I'm not opposed to it either. I say let them do whatever.
21st Century Renaissance Man
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.
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
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
Years ago, I suspect you would have used another word instead of "progressive." It's an epithet coming from you and little more.
The rest of your insane little rant here is incredible in its utter madness. I think I'll take anything I ever see you write here on Slashdot with this pearl in mind.
The problem is that the government had no business getting into the marriage business in the first place.
I'd argue the opposite is true. The problem is the fact that churches could perform religious ceremonies that gave legal rights to the participants (things like inheritance, property and a whole passel of other things). This also allowed churches to deny those rights to people they disagreed with (be they gay, of the wrong religion or because they fidgeted during the sermon). The correct solution is to enforce the separation: let no religious ceremony influence or change somebody's legal rights. Don't legally acknowledge any purely religious baptism, marriage, separation or anything else. If somebody desires, they can have both a state marriage and any number of religious ceremonies, but the only one that legally counts should be the state one. That change would rid us of a LOT of headaches. (BTW. IANAL, but I think marriage law belongs somewhere under the general area of contract law.)
Wrong. Once you legally redefine the word marriage all sorts of follow on side effects begin. Tolerance ends and acceptance on pain of government begins. Catholic Church doesn't believe it is right? Tough. Won't matter once the law changes, they will give em a full church wedding and place a child in their care through their adoption agency or the Justice Dept cornholes em.
No. No. No. No. How many times must this stupid argument be thrown around?
Look. Right now, the Catholic Church does not allow a marriage to occur if one of the partners is divorced. Similarly, Jewish synagogues will not marry a Jew to a non-Jew. However, both of these marriages are allowed by law. In your little world, where the legal requirement is forced upon the religious institutions, how is this possible? The DOJ should've forced these types of marriages on these institutions a long, long, long time ago.
But they didn't. Why? Because what the law allows is never, and has never been, forced upon religious institutions. If the law allows same-sex marriage, many churches will continue to disallow it, and the law will do nothing about that. Just like it always has.
Legalizing same sex marriage has absolutely zero impact on anyone other than adult homosexuals who choose to marry their same-sex partner. It will not impact you (assuming you're heterosexual), your church, your own marriage, or anything or anyone else. And for the record, I'm writing this from a country that already allows same-sex marriage, so I'm not just speculating here, I'm describing reality.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Your opening title showed promise, but then you dived into the bigotry behind it. Sad.
I do agree with the religious groups that a civil union or ceremony providing all the benefits of marriage should be sufficient, but the simple fact of the matter is even those who've lived common law for 20 years and legally "married" as a result in the eyes of the law do NOT receive the same respect and courtesy as those who have been through a ceremony.
It took me 3 years to realize that and support gay MARRIAGE, not just the legal status they should be accorded.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Wrong. Once you legally redefine the word marriage all sorts of follow on side effects begin.
You mean like letting a man and a dog get married? Mmmm hmm.
But worse, some of us know this is only the current demand. Once they get gay marriage they are going to push without interruption for group ones. And always keep your eye on NAMBLA, they really mean it when they say "Sex before eight or it's too late."
... yeah, I wasn't far off. I have a question for you: Why do think gays will invest their energy into making it legal to have sex with children? Is there actually a reason for this rationale or did it just sound really convincing when you heard some loudmouth spout it in an attempt to justify his own bigotry?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and by your logic, you support "freedom", unless of course that means "freedom to enter a union with any person you choose". Then you think "freedom" should be restricted to "what I agree with".
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Slight correction: The justice department can't force a catholic agency to place children with homosexual adoptive parents, true... but some state contracts are conditional on them doing so. If they refuse, they don't get government money. Naturally the church is screaming mad about this discrimination of not giving them money.
So the whole kerfuffle boils down to "we don't want gays to sign a piece of paper".
no, it's that some folks see marriage as a sacred (as in religious) vow between a man and a woman, and they think their holy doctrine tells them that homosexuality is wrong.
of course i don't agree, but you should at least understand the viewpoint. if you get into a discussion with someone and you immediately boil it down to signing a piece of paper, or not, you aren't going to change any minds or make anyone think.
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
Well then they can get out of the adoption business, which is very full of legal concerns. No accepting state money without being subject to restrictions the state has to exist under.
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?
Chick-fil-A has thrown a lot of support to anti-gay and "defense of marriage" groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#Religious_and_political_views
Spoken like a man that has never had a gay friend dress him for a hot date.
"You're not wearing that are you?"
"Yeah."
"Let me rephrase, YOU ARE NOT WEARING THAT!"
"Why? I look good."
"For a hillbilly child molester, yeah you look great. Ditch the pants and jacket, wear these instead with this belt."
"Stop being so dramatic."
"I assume your goal is to put your penis in her vagina at some point this evening?"
"Yes....."
"Not going to happen dressed like that. Wear this watch too."
Next morning, text message:
GGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!
"You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
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.
Evolution doesn't require belief. It works regardless, for our whole species including gay people. So if a theory doesn't fit the facts, its the theory which needs to change. Homosexuality must be consistent with evolution, otherwise it would not exist.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
Your view of the UK is just your paranoid delusion.
On the other hand, as most of us don't care what you feel so perhaps it is not entirely paranoia.
Read my post again. Nothing I said supports your response.
Actually, they don't care about a goddamned piece of paper. They care about tax breaks and pensions.
So let's raise a question: WHY do married couples get those tax breaks? If it's for raising kids, marriages without kids should be denied those (and then we don't really need marriage other than civil unions -- unify those tax breaks with child benefits single parents get). If it's for living together, polygamy should be allowed -- and heck, even merely being roommates as that's no different from a white marriage.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
But I refuse to say 2+2=5.
So you hate gays AND Radiohead? That is too much. We can no longer be friends.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
A lot of churches seem to want to be persecuted. If they aren't persecuted, then they'll either incite some false persecution by deliberatly flouting the law, or just imagine some and try to exagerate.
More than 0.5% of the population is openly gay. I fail to see how you are forced to think anything by anyone. You are free to be a bigot if you so choose, and others are free to react to your viewpoint as they see fit.
Regardless of the Constitution, there are two reasons for the separation of church and state: religion corrupts government, and government corrupts religion. They make each other worse.
Power over innocent people is a bad thing. Since both government and religion are instruments of power over people, it is best if they contest against each other, limiting the abuses that each brings against people in general.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
What numbers? Can you cite any?
Really? I've never seen NAMBLA mentioned outside of Slashdot, and even the only by trolls.
Man, you sound reasonable in other topics but here you just lose your mind and go full retard.
Trust me, a low UID does not make you smart.
WALSTIB!
Is that of a pimp to his prostitutes.
I think I had that question on my SAT's.
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.
No, it's about equal-status.
In the UK, we have "gay marriage" in all but name; civil partnerships. It confers all the (very limited) financial benefits of marriage, but is only for "teh gayz".
Our tax-code is pretty non-involved when it comes to marriage. If you'e living with someone as a partner, that's the limit - doesn't matter if you're married, civil-unioned, or anything.
Yet, oddly (if you follow the "financial" argument), the gay community is still pushing for equal-marriage. Here in Scotland we're having a big fight over it, with the Catholic Church (amongst others) arguing it's wrong, and the equal-rights groups saying it's about damned time, and the normal, rational people being somewhere in the middle, but broadly in favour of it (since it's not about money, and just about equality, most people come down on the side of equality, not sky-wizrd voodoo).
It's all about being treated equally, as a fair and equal member of society. I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all - you can make a permanent union (and break them with due solemnity) but what you call it is entirely up to you and your own personal Sky Wizard. No state involvement at all in that side of things.
Of course, this would be painted as the deliberate destruction of marriage (even though, actually, we'd be going back to an age-old situation where marriage is a matter for the church, nothing to do with the state at all) to please the evil homosexual liberal satanists or whatever.
TL:DR summary: dont expect reason from irrational people like the religious right. It'll just make your head hurt.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
Do any large corporations/companies push AGAINST gay marriage? Or are they either for or quiet?
WalMart and ExxonMobil come to mind (ranked 1 and 2 in Fortune 500, no less). There was a whole thing recently about Target and Best Buy making large campaign contributions to an extremely anti-gay candidate.
sic transit gloria mundi
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!
So youre saying you can get married to the person you love, and is thus equal?
Or are you an ignorant fucktard?
Are you sure that evolution is really supposed to work like that? It sounds rather... counter-intuitive.
Yup.
It's called the "Gay Uncle" hypothesis. In short, each subsequent male child the mother births has a 7% (if I recall correctly) increased chance of being gay. The idea is that the older male siblings reproduce to pass on the family's genes while the gay offspring contribute by helping out the extended family and ensuring the children are taken care of and survive to pass on their family's genes.
Like all evolutionary psychology theories, take it with a huge grain of salt. But the notion that homosexuality must be an abberation because gays don't reproduce doesn't fit with the current state of science.
My wife keeps asking the same question.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
So basically you say being homosexual is a choice they make.
Why would you think this, unless it is similar in your case?
So you admit that day in and day out you have to force yourself to choose to be sexually attracted to females, and that is not what simply comes naturally to you?
I know I don't make any choice to be attracted to the opposite sex, it just sorta IS for me. I don't have to try to do it, like you seem to do and assume everyone else does as well.
I'm guessing since you are not naturally attracted to women and have to choose that, that perhaps your problems are related to denying your own body's natural urges and forcing yourself to be attracted to the opposite sex.
Hiding your true feelings like that is not physically good for you. It causes stress, emotional pain, and other mental problems that would all simply go away if you just did what came naturally, instead of forcing this choice of being straight onto yourself.
That is how most of us live. Whatever feels right sexually is what we end up doing.
You might find more happiness to try this yourself. Trust me, most people would not think any different of you. You do have to watch out for hateful bigots of course, but thankfully they are far and few between!
From The Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955:
Definition Number 2. Addicted to social pleasures and dissipations; often euphem. : Of immoral life 1637
Definition Number 3. Bight or lively-looking, esp. in color; brilliant, showy ME
2 is 374 years old; ME means Middle English and is even older. Another definition, now obsolete, is "Specious", dating from 1529.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Windows is gai!
This is what entropy is for.
It's not merely taxes -- other parts of the package include stuff like inheritance, granting citizenship, etc.
You didn't answer why we should give these rights to gays but not to other variants of marriage (like polygamy). Unless you meant this by "I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all" -- in that case, the civil union contract (whatever it is named) would have no such restrictions.
And as for religious right: what about forcing them to follow their own rules, including forced marriage with the victim and 50 shekels (=$13) for a rape? That's what Christianity tells us to do (the New Testament stresses five times that all old rules are still in full force). I guess we'd see a huge rush of apostates (here, mostly women) if they read the scripture.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Bigoted fucktard, and a coward as well.
Well, we still can contribute to the gene pool, just not as couples. Lesbians often bear biological children using donated sperm, and gay men can do something similar in the reverse by essentially renting a womb. It's perfectly conceivable to have a species in which one relatively common but infertile variant does all the child rearing, in which case that infertile group would still be selected for regardless of its infertility. I'm not a biologist, so I don't have a specific example. Evolution can be quite indirect--for instance, "cuteness" has been selected for in recent years (see: pandas; cats/kittens; dogs/puppies; sea otters; ...), but only because humans have come to dominate parts of the planet.
Regardless, basing social policy off of evolution is a stupid (or at least heartless) thing to do. If you wanted to enact social policy based on what evolution favors, you'd give all the resources to people who want to have tons of kids, and deprive those who don't. So what if that means the educated suffer and die? There would be tons of humans around until society stopped being able to provide for itself and the population would crash. Evolution isn't perfect by any means. Social policy should be based on social attitudes instead of the inefficient, brutal system that got us here.
All that said, I'm reasonably sure the OP (thread starter) is just a troll, or a troll's near cousin. They seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, and the issues be damned.
Utter bollocks. You have absolutely no idea of what you speak of
Fuck off and die, bigot
And did you ever stop to think that records of gay marriages in the past were destroyed by the church in order to keep their handhold on the institution? I mean, Catholicism destroyed whole cultures' worth of history in South America. And the act of marriage predates recorded history anyway. How the fuck do you know what went in 5000 years ago?
This reminds me of the claim that fossils were created by God as artifacts.
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.
Which does kinda lead to the real problem. Intolerance. For a progressive the philosophy seems to be "The one thing I won't tolerate is intolerance." and it quickly becomes clear that in their midset any disagreement with any of their policy positions is based on bigotry, racism or just plain stupidity because their position is so self evidently correct that no rational counterargument is possible; thus any disagreement must be concealing some hidden motive.
For disagreeing with politically correct orthodoxy on gay marriage I have managed to garner several death threats from the so called 'tolerant' progressives here on Slashdot this afternoon. Very illuminating.
Everyone who thinks I should be boiled in oil for daring to disagree should go watch South Park's "Death Camp of Tolerance" episode. Especially Mr. Garrison's rant at the end.
Democrat delenda est
I probably should have used 7000 instead of 5000 :)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Well, societal norms and expectations do have *some* input into how the law should run in these situations. By and large (at least, here in Scotland), polygamy & polyandry are quite rare - and we don't ban people from living together/having multi-person sexual relationships. A civil union is a recognition by the state that 90% or so of the nation will at some point form a mostly-monogomous relationship with a single other person, often for the purpose (although not explicitly or exclusively) of raising children, and that the State should help out with recognition of this with a legal union.
That said, I'm not opposed to legalised polygamy/polyandry, provided there are sufficient safeguards to avoid abuse, both of partners (as often seen in religious groups where it's *always* a man and many wives, no the reverse etc.), and of the institution itself (it's supposed to be for forming social unions - some would abuse the right to envelop large numbers of people into one union, for tax/money laundering etc. purposes). Provided those safeguards are in place, I cannot argue against it, if the people so desire it.
As for forcing religious groups to live by their creed, no, not touching that with a 10 foot pole! If you want to believe in a Magic Sky Wizard, or a whole collection of them for that matter (I do - I'm a pagan), great, happy for you, if it brings you peace, helps you live your life, gets you towards nirvana, whatever. None of my business though, and none of the state's, unless you make it our business by doing something unpleasant (obnoxious proselytising, abuse of children or family members, restricting the rights of others etc.). Otherwise, believe what you like, and we'll not bother you, if you don't bother us. Seems fairly simple, really.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
There's more, from "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" (Barnes & Noble Books, 1996)
In addition to its original and continuing senses of "merry, lively" and "bright or showy," GAY has has various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and GAY as an adjective meaning "homosexual" goes back at least to the the early 1900's.
For what it's worth, "gay" meaning "homosexual" was so well established that its meaning was clear in the 1938 film "Bringing up Baby" (Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn).
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Just because a church performs a marriage ceremony doesn't mean the ceremony has any legal standing, otherwise all those Mormons with ten wives would have ten legitimate marriages. The legitimacy of the marriage comes from the person (whether they be a priest, a judge, the captain of a ship or whoever) being recognized by the state as being permitted to oversee the ceremony and legitimize the signing of the civil marriage certificate. It isn't weddings in churches that are recognized at all, and in most jurisdictions, if you're not in some way on record as being allowed to conduct a marriage ceremony, the ceremony is not considered lawful.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
1. Necrophiliacs can still have normal relations, and many necrophiliacs have biological children. So your attempt to co-opt science to confirm your bigotry fails.
2. The psychiatry and psychology communities could stop viewing necrophilia as any kind of mental or sexual defect in the future. You can't justify your bigotry that way either.
3. The United States guarantees equal protection under the law. Your attempt to limit the definition of marriage to justify your bigotry fails.
QED everyone who says that marrying a corpse is wrong are bigots!
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?
I honestly cannot believe you just pulled the government oppression card. How exactly do you think homosexuals feel? Some church believes gay marriage is their right? Tough! If they marry them, the Justice Dept crawls all over their ass. The "pain of government" that you would feel is the forcible removal of the iron fist of Christianity's moral oppression on the issue of marriage. Oh, you can no longer dictate who gets married in all churches rather than just your own? Boo fucking hoo.
It's rather funny actually, your comment. You write from a libertarian bent, citing "the pain of government", yet your post is so completely anti-libertarian. It resembles the stock standard template of any powerful and oppressive group scaring the public into allowing them to keep their power. Something along the lines of, "If you don't less us control this, there'll be anarchy! Exactly the worst possible scenario could happen! That liberty is not worth the massive drop in security, right?"
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I also wonder what rights they actually want.
Obviously, "the same". Regardless of what they are.
Dilbert RSS feed
Microsoft has supported its LGBT employees since before Google even *existed*.
Nice attempt at trolling, though.
> Why would you think this, unless it is similar in your case?
Ok, THIS argument I'm even more tired of, the "if you disagree with letting militant gays redesign society in their image it must mean you are an in the closet self hating gay yourself." That argument is more retarded than the Chewbacca Defense on South Park. By that 'logic' the average Ron Paul/Stormfront racist nutter is secretly black or a jew? Eh?
No, I resist the militant gays because they are just one front in the wider progressive movement to 'transform America' into fail.
Democrat delenda est
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.
Well by that measure I'm not married either. Heterosexual atheist couple, non-religious ceremony. That said, I take the vows damn seriously, and I consider them sacred. Just not blessed by his noodly appendage.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
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.
There are TWO kinds of marriage, religious and civil. There is a LEGAL distinction between them.
That is not a matter of opinion, but legal reality.
You need a civil license for one, and (insert supersitious sanction of choice) for the other.
Superstitionists are defined by and ruled by their superstition, so there is no convincing them. HOWEVER, they should be exposed thoroughly so fewer recruits for their nonsense will be available!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Good thing there is no Chick-fil-A in Washington State then. The closest one is in Boise Idaho, go figure.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
That is not a matter of opinion, but legal reality.
clearly it's not reality, or we wouldn't need to pass laws sanctioning gay marriage. it's not just the letter of the law it's how it gets interpreted. why can't i own a fully automatic rifle, and why can't i brandish any weapon in public?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the law clearly states that my right to own and wield a weapon cannot be infringed.
Chik-Fil-A is actively bigoted.
Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words that we are bigots
Why do you get to believe that you have a monopoly on what those words mean?
Face it: If you are against gay marriage, you are a bigot. End of story.
Which of the benefits of marriage are they wanting?
Here's a list of about 1400 benefits that are given to married couples but denied gay couples: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
Homosexuality is a mental defect, albeit a minor one in the bigger scheme of things.
You have just shown yourself to be a bigoted asshole with that statement. Fuck you.
So the whole kerfuffle boils down to "we don't want gays to sign a piece of paper".
Well, there's also all the shit that goes with signing the paper. Things like being able to visit your spouse in the hospital.
Which does kinda lead to the real problem. Intolerance.
Oh please. "Waaaaaaaa! We're experiencing intolerance because of our bigotry! Waaaaaaaaa"
Go fuck yourself. Maybe if you weren't "intolerant" in the first place, people wouldn't be calling you intolerant.
Everyone who thinks I should be boiled in oil for daring to disagree should go watch South Park's "Death Camp of Tolerance" episode. Especially Mr. Garrison's rant at the end.
Except that doesn't agree with you in the slightest. Remember, he was trying to get fired because he was gay, and performing sex acts in front of the children. Such things would not be tolerated if they were straight, either.
Actually, they don't care about a goddamned piece of paper. They care about tax breaks and pensions.
And things like these: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
If you don't like my term of 'defect' for someone who takes themselves out of the gene pool please supply a better term.
So those who choose to pursue science or literature for instance instead of child rearing are defective? How about those who go into teaching and don't have children of their own? Maybe they do more for *society* and the advancement of the human race than popping out a baby.
Working in a library I would assume that the works of Walt Whitman. Or perhaps you think George Washington was "Defective" since he never fathered any children.
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.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2844434
There are far more. And in fact until recently marriage had little to do with love, but was essentially an exchange of goods and services or a reasonable arrangement to run a household and farm.
But all of that is irrelevant. You don't have to "accept them". Southerners didn't accept Slaves as human beings by any definition of the word in the English language. But we did right by them. So too will the country move on without you and recognize your fellow citizens and bestow upon them the legal rights they deserve--regardless if you want to recognize them.
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.
Well, we don't give a shit what you think, and I have bad news for you: you've already lost. It's only a matter of time. If you're old, it doesn't matter too much because you'll die soon, and your idiocy will die with you and those like you. If you're young, well, that sucks for you because you're going to have to put up with these unpleasant changes for the whole rest of your life.
It's the way it is, the way it always has been, and the way it always will be.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Wrong. Once you legally redefine the word marriage all sorts of follow on side effects begin. Tolerance ends and acceptance on pain of government begins. Catholic Church doesn't believe it is right? Tough. Won't matter once the law changes, they will give em a full church wedding and place a child in their care through their adoption agency or the Justice Dept cornholes em. And the fun only begins in those obvious places. We will be cleaning up the messes in the laws for fifty years.
This is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen written here. You are completely, utterly, 100% WRONG.
The Catholic Church, and EVERY OTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION IN THE COUNTRY is already allowed to decide whether or not they want to perform a wedding. If the Catholic Church does not believe that you and your spouse will live a life consistent with their beliefs, they will deny the wedding. Same thing will happen with gay couples.
Or do you honestly believe that Islamic centers are being forced to provide weddings for Jewish couples?
Go fuck yourself, you ignorant, worthless, bigoted piece of trash.
You have no fucking numbers to back this up and you fucking know it.
Go fuck yourself. You are quite frankly the worst bigot I have seen on here.
And no, you cannot use this as an example of "intolerance". You have to take responsibility for your positions. That involves getting called out as a bigoted piece of shit when you act like one.
For disagreeing with politically correct orthodoxy on gay marriage I have managed to garner several death threats from the so called 'tolerant' progressives here on Slashdot this afternoon.
Pics or it didn't happen.
And besides, it's easy to find idiots on either side. Go to any NRA forum and suggest that maybe a 24 hour waiting period to buy a guy isn't a terrible idea and see how many OPEN death threats you walk away with. At least these supposed death threats you've been a victim of were sent by people who had the sense to keep it private.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
This is completely and utterly false. Marriage has been a civil institution for just as long, if not longer, than it's been a religious institution.
That makes it a good idea, not that there's any legal basis for it.
What else did you expect from a progressive? There is no Truth other than "that which serves the Party." Facts are ok unless they are in the way in which case invent some new ones and insist they are equally valid.
Because you're clearly the bastion of real truth, with all your lies and disinformation about what will happen if gay marriage is legal.
Fuck your persecution complex. You are the one actively trying to persecute people.
> At least these supposed death threats you've been a victim of were sent by people who had the sense to keep it private.
Um, nope. They are in this article's permanent record for all the world to see and be instructed thereby. Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Democrat delenda est
> Because you're clearly the bastion of real truth, with all your lies and disinformation about what will happen if gay marriage is legal.
Really? You really don't believe gay marriage is part and parcel of the progressive efforts to mainstream homosexuality? Do you really think that society won't be fundamentally changed thereby? Do you really believe that isn't the whole POINT of the exercise? And considering the progressive's track record it is a pretty safe bet the changes will be for the bad.
Democrat delenda est
Maybe he's protestant.
If you don't like my term of 'defect' for someone who takes themselves out of the gene pool please supply a better term.
OK, how about "Catholic Priest".
Yes, there is discrimination. If you're a man, you can only marry a woman. If you're a woman, you can only marry a man. You are treated differently based on your gender. That violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Also, that exact same argument was tried with interracial marriage: "No, see, it's equal treatment 'cause everyone's free to marry whoever they want as long as it's someone of the same race!". Didn't fly then, either.
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.
You got it backwards: the modern marriage that "conservatives" like to hold up as traditional was rare; families had a completely different structure and living arrangements, and many men never could marry at all.
No, it's a "wedge" to drive religiously-based discrimination out of government.
Funny, except for your God delusion, Christian conservatives like you seem pretty much the same as "progressives": you want to use big government to impose your lifestyle and your views on everybody else, and reason and liberty mean nothing to you.
No, you didn't fix it. You're making an extreme and hyperbolic claim. A pretty shameful display.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
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.
Chick-fil-A does, yes. There official stance is that they welcome anyone to eat at their restaurants, of course, which is the right position. However, they donate buttloads* of money and resources to anti-gay entities.
* HA!
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)
I'll reply to you as if you weren't trolling, which I don't believe you were. I myself am a gay man with a family.
Why do people insist that we don't allow them to redefine perfectly good words that we are bigots.
I don't care to define what YOU think is marriage. What I care is that a government, which is in reality the will of 50%+1 of a population, can define it. I don't want anyone to tell me what my church says is a marriage. BTW, when you say "redefine", the legal definition of marriage has changed so fucking much throughout history it's unbelievable. For example, until the 1970s interracial marriage was illegal in many parts of the country. Marriage was redefined to allow interracial marriages in the U.S. after that.
But don't let that bit stump the argument... once again I don't give a shit what you and anyone else thinks is a marriage. I think it is wrong for any gay person to go into a Baptist church and tell them what marriage is. I think it's wrong for the Baptists to come into a Lutheran church and tell them what marriage is. I think it's wrong for the government to define marriage, period. Your "definition" is perfectly fine, and I don't care for you to change it at all... I just don't want you defining it for me, either.
Which of the benefits of marriage are they wanting?
The fact that you're actually asking this gives you no credibility to make judgement. There are so many things that I want. I don't want to have any fear of driving through Arkansas and having my children taken away from me and my husband because Arkansas doesn't acknowledge my children as my children. I don't want to be kept out of my dying husbands hospital room, to let him die alone and without me in the last 8 hours of his life, terrified and just wanting me by his side and I by his. I don't want the government to discriminate against me and my husband with children over a heterosexual couple with children or a single mother with children or a heterosexual couple without children or a previously divorced couple with children from their previous marriages. I don't want to have to testify against my spouse, unlike heterosexuals. There's a WHOLE lot more.
Considering who pushes both concepts seems to have a LOT of overlap in membership, is it wrong to suspect an agenda?
Yes, that is a logical fallacy. I suspect you're a Glen Beck fan. Correlation is not causation. Also, the idea that a majority of gays wants to destroy religion is simply unfounded and untestable and therefore unprovable. You're probably getting it confused with the idea that gays generally try to prevent Baptist prejudices in government - which is exactly what our Founding Fathers wanted as well. That in no way means gays hate religion. If gays hate the firey Baptist-style "God hates fags" religions, it doesn't imply that a gay person hates religion in general. What tends to happen is that if a gay person is arguing against that bullshit, they are arguing against such religious beliefs (or specifically in the government)... but that does NOT imply that a gay person is against religion in general.
Homosexuality is a mental defect, albeit a minor one in the bigger scheme of things.
OK, fine, so is left handedness. Gayness and left-handedness shouldn't be discriminated by the government, only actions that cause harm to other people.
They should NOT be given the ability to form family units and adopt for example.
For an example of what? I'm gay and already in a fucking family unit you fucktard, and I and other gay people are quite capable of raising children. (Sorry, but this one statement deserves you being called a fucktard) Statements like this are the reason that people like you are the most dangerous threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gays are ALREADY IN family units from the day they were born, they ALREADY FOR
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Oh I knew it... you're positioning yourself as the discriminated one. You're not being "attacked" because you're disagreeing with orthodoxy, you're being "attacked" out of the defense of people who are actually being discriminated.
You may have received some irrational responses, but that doesn't mean all responses to your argument are irrational. And you have made quite irrational statements, jmorris42.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
You didn't answer why we should give these rights to gays but not to other variants of marriage (like polygamy). Unless you meant this by "I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all" -- in that case, the civil union contract (whatever it is named) would have no such restrictions.
Yes. Most rational discourses that I am involved in come down to that exact sentiment - the government shouldn't have a role in defining what a marriage is at all. Consenting polygamists shouldn't be discriminated against, just as consenting homosexuals shouldn't, either. Also, it wasn't in your post, but another huge argument in the discourses is procreation. There can be societal benefits to procreation without defining marriage, such as tax breaks for people supporting children.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
If it costs $2K for gays and 0$ for heterosexuals, there's a problem.
And if marriage has specific religious meanings for specific religious sects, it shouldn't be in the government's domain.
what marriage means....just makes the meaning worthless......and that i believe is the real motivation
No it's not the motivation. I don't even believe that you believe that. The motivation is to not have any governmental discrimination (de jure). De facto there will always be discrimination among minorities or any different "group" between peoples.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
That's the problem right there. Anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is assumed to be a bigot. If I say, "homosexuality grosses me out," somehow that makes me a bigot. If I say, "male-female S&M grosses me out," I'm not considered a bigot.
I don't have any problem with people being gay. Be gay, I don't care. Just like I don't care if you and your wife partake in S&M. I just don't want to hear about it. That shit's private. There are a lot of strange lifestyles that are so bizarre that the greater society doesn't accept discussing about it in polite conversation. If you and your furry swinger wife spent the weekend at a furry gangbang, it's not unreasonable that your co-workers won't want to hear about it on Monday. Just because Steve's talking about how he took his wife to a romantic resort doesn't it mean your furry-gangbang story is now appropriate. It's a pretty standard protocol: if you're going to talk about your relationships it damn well be pretty standard or you better damn well know the people you are talking to are comfortable discussing your perversions.
As for marriage. It's not a right. Having a relationship is a right. Having the acceptance of society isn't a right. Being tolerated by society is. Marriage is a crock of shit, anyway. I'd be for a law that results in less marriages rather than more.
My marriage solution: The only way two people can get married is by having a child together. Either biologically or through adoption. But the vows would less be for each other and more be for the child. And the vows would be legally binding. Basically, no divorce until the child is an adult. The married couple and child must live together until the child is an adult. Marriage isn't about love. It's about raising a child. Love just makes things easier.
No. But the numbers don't lie either. The odds of a gay man being busted is far higher (on a per capita basis) than for a hetero.
The ratio of pedophiles that are gay to straight is the same ratio of people who are gay to straight. And pedophilia isn't homosexuality anyways... a real homosexual wants a big fat hairy cock to suck, and little boys don't have those.
And since this is Slashdot, I'll cite. Pedophiles who are attracted to young boys tend NOT to be attracted to adult men. Here's a link to a reference for a 1978 paper on the topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/666571?dopt=Abstract
And the abstract:
"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Gay marriage is already legal in many areas of the world and it hasn't caused the downfall of society.
I don't know what "mainstreaming homosexuality" is, but what I do know is that all I want is the end of governmental discrimination. I don't think (and no rational person thinks) that Baptists are going to start homosexual marrying each other in areas where it's legal.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
What stats? The Nazis had the most elaborate census data in human history, and found that the number was around 8%.
Stats are very hard to determine. Health clinics now use the term "men who have sex with men" because many of them don't identify as "gay". I'm an American, and I've never written down on any census or poll that I'm gay.
Now, I'm not bashing you... it's just that I've never seen any reliable data which puts the number at 1%-2%. I personally don't know the correct and actual answer, either, and I suspect nobody really can scientifically determine it in today's world.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
HA! My thoughts exactly. He loves feeling "persecuted".
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
What's a militant gay?
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
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.
I don't want to force anything upon anyone... I want freedom from others. I don't want special status, I want equal status. I don't give a shit if you hate gays, I give a shit if the government discriminates against me.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
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.
For a progressive the philosophy seems to be "The one thing I won't tolerate is intolerance."
It is, indeed, the only rational position - just as libertarians deem all freedoms of utmost importance, except for the freedom to take away others' freedoms ("... where my nose begins" and all that):
"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
- Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies"
Do you seriously believe that communist = socialist = liberal = progressive?
Really? You really don't believe gay marriage is part and parcel of the progressive efforts to mainstream homosexuality?
Really? You really don't believe that desegregating buses and schools is part and parcel of the progressive efforts to mainstream miscegenation? Considering the abolitionists' track record it is a pretty safe bet the changes will be for the bad.
I mean, just think of it, some nigger could screw a white lady - YUCK! (and she could be your daughter, too!) - and you wouldn't even be able to lynch him afterwards, like in the good old days.
Microsoft joins the GNAA in supporting Gay Marriage.
This is Slashdot after all.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
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
"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.
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.
gee, and I would have thought the being together for 14 years was the marriage. but the fulfilment , the satisfaction, the closure, of that paper signing was really The Marriage. I just had my 14th anniversary too, and you've made me realise I've been a fool
the truth is marriage is an institution designed primarily to give some protection to women (while they of course at the same time lacked many, many other rights and protections)
Very interesting and telling of historic mindset that it was marriage to African people that was forbidden in most States. By 1910, 28 states prohibited certain forms of interracial marriage. but only seven states (Arizona, California, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah) forbad asians marrying whites.
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/
This 31 year old white American hetero agrees!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Legalizing same sex marriage has absolutely zero impact on anyone other than adult homosexuals who choose to marry their same-sex partner. It will not impact you (assuming you're heterosexual), your church, your own marriage, or anything or anyone else.
Since this opens up the social benefit of a marriage to same-sex couples it deprives bigots of a reason to feel superior over said couples. Also, if that social benefit is spread to more people bigots probably perceive it as depriving them of something, however moronic that objectively is...
np: Pink Floyd - Nobody Home (The Wall (Disc 2))
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
Equal rights is always good. Fail.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Just because they support one thing you agree with doesn't mean you shouldn't oppose the mechanism by which they do it. They could support it with their internal policies and impact society. We need to break the corporate influence over politics. It will always benefit the few who control the corporations at the expense of the general population.
If people in charge of corporations want laws passed, they should make the case to the public, not directly to our elected representatives. Our corporate overlords do not care what marriage arrangements you have so long as they can rob you of political and economic power. Corporations supporting change you like is just bait for the trap.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality to be a sin or the epitome of bliss, the fact of the matter is that the relationships homosexuals have with each other isn't marriage, and to ask the government to force others to accept your view on the subject is just plain wrong. It seems odd to me that, instead of asking people to accept them for who they are and their relationship for what it is, they are asking us to recognize them as married, as if they were merely eccentric heterosexuals. To do so only lends credence to the notion that the primary, fundamental human relationship is the union of a man and a woman. It also glosses over the distinctions between the union of man and woman and that of two people who, ostensibly, love each other.
Gays would do better just to be honest about their relationships. Even though my fellow heterosexuals do things with other heterosexuals I personally find morally objectionable, we can continue to treat each other like human beings because we are honest with each other, and honest about our disagreement on moral issues. It keeps the discussion open. But it seems like gays and lesbians have a problem with terms such as girlfriend or boyfriend, and oddly believe that a culture in which committed, non-marriage relationships are the norm, will not understand their relationship unless it's called marriage. As if we've never loved anyone passionately or deeply.
But with such dishonesty going on, an open dialogue is impossible. It is difficult for gays to understand the opposing point of view - that marriage is more than just a committed relationship, that it is more than just a matter of how two people feel about each other. Marriage - as traditionally understood - is the only relationship from which new life comes into the world, and is the best relationship in which to raise children. Having myself been raised for a portion of my life without my father in the home, I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. No one would doubt the love of my mother, but she just wasn't a father when I needed one. And yet I see lesbians adopting children, who lack even the ability to understand the emotional harm they'll inflict on their adopted child. They really, genuinely don't see what a mother and father give to their children, nor understand the joy of bringing your spouse's child into the world. To have a loving relationship sanctioned by God seems a concept beyond their reach.
And I don't blame gays or lesbians for being the way they are. I blame the rest of the world for suggesting that the basis and core of marriage is simply a strong love for someone else. I blame the sympathizers who - without any understanding of real marriage in the first place - suggest that gay and lesbian relationships are equivalent to the one I have with my wife, in spite of the profound moral and logical ignorance of such a position. The debate over marriage has never been about "who people love", but rather, about the role and expectations of marriage in society. From a governmental point of view, marriage is treated differently, and needs special treatment, only because it is the relationship from which new life comes into the world. It is the genesis of the family, which is crucial to the health of our society.
The debate about marriage is not about discriminating against homosexuals, but recognizing the merits of the traditional family. If you chose not to go that route - and many very holy people have - fine. But making that choice doesn't entitle you to the treatment given to those of us who have. Those of us who marry spouses of the opposite sex take on a commitment and role in society that gay and lesbian couples will never do. Again, from a social perspective, there's nothing wrong with not getting married. But we are a people capable of recognizing fine distinctions in relationships, and we must be honest with each other if we expect all people to be treated with dignity and respect. Calling the union of two homosexuals marriage isn't respecting them; rather, it suggests that you really wish they'd married someone of the opposite sex. In other words, you don't understand their relationship, and would rather avoid conflict than come to terms with what their relationship is really about.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
You harken back to the old days that never were. And did you ever stop to think that records of gay marriages in the past were destroyed by the church in order to keep their handhold on the institution?
No doubt they were destroyed at the same time they destroyed all of the records of marriages to space aliens.
How the fuck do you know what went in 5000 years ago?
If only there were some records..... if only...
And how the fuck is that relevant today?
'Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; -- Zechariah 8:17 (580+ BCE)
"'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. -- Leviticus 19:18 (1270+ BCE)
That still seems sound.
In short, you win the award for Biggest Piece Of Shit Of The Day.
So you don't support the idea of civil discourse then?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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?
Looks like we have a new winner for today.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The debate is simple. Why is it exactly that you want to tell consenting adults what kind of relationship they can possibly have? Why is it that you feel you have the right or wisdom to poke your nose in other peoples' business? It's supposed to be a free country, which means you get to believe what you want to believe, but you don't get an automatic veto on how other people choose to live.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I suspect you do love your neighbor as yourself, which is sad, really.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I suspect you lack the ability to say anything not linked to superstitions that have been passed down for millenia.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
There is no free speech here. Everything has to be Left wing, Marxist, or you're sacked from your job.
Are you nuts? The UK has been right-wing since Maggie Thatcher took power in 1979.
Marxist? Everything has been privatised.
You can't even get a decent education any more without having to pay for it privately.
Free speech? You're allowed to say what you like as long as you don't incite violence or spout arbitrary hate... Oh wait... I see your problem with that.
Cretin.
Stick Men
Hmmm.... let's see....
Militantly atheist communist governments killed about 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.
The birth rate of native Europeans is so far below replacement rate that they risk serious social problems in the next 30 years.
Gallium Arsenide is an interesting III-V semiconductor material for a number of reasons.
Engineers in the Soviet Union continued to perfect and use vacuum tubes long after they were abandoned in the West.
Well, bad luck, your suspicion turns out to be false. Of course what is interesting about that is that I was simply responding to your statements that were, to use your phrase, "linked to superstitions that have been passed down for millenia."
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
The fact of the matter is, your bullshit doesn't work here. You're trying to tie Mr. Garrison's behavior in that episode, namely, performing sex acts in front of children, including sticking a gerbil up another man's ass, with allowing gay marriage. And it's not going to work.
I don't give a fuck how repulsive or how much you don't like gay people. That does NOT give you the right to try and deny them their civil rights. END OF STORY.
I honestly don't give a shit. The point is for people to have equal rights. The fact that you're trying to tie this into being part of some big "homosexual agenda" plot is fucking crazy.
There is no "homosexual agenda", any more than there was an "interracial agenda" or a "black agenda" back in the 50s/60s. Pull your head out of your ass, and realize that these people have just as much right to live their lives, and enjoy all the privileges of marriage that you do.
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...
As for this "mainstreaming homosexuality" bullshit, yes. If it means the end of hate-driven violence against gay people in many parts of the world, including some parts of the US, then I'm all for it.
And considering the progressive's track record it is a pretty safe bet the changes will be for the bad./quote.
Sorry. History disagrees with you on that one. Society progressing has been a GOOD THING, as it has meant more rights and opportunities for the people.
Maybe if you stopped trying to see this as some "progressive plot", and looked at it as two loving people trying to get the same rights and recognition as two other loving people, then your attitude might change.
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.