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
HOW does it affect you if two guys walk on street and hold hands?
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.
I actually clicked and read that... and, err... that's a bit of fuss about nothing, isn't it?
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.
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.
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
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.
How do we the people change things so that we, not corporations, rule the country?
Federalize the law of corporations, and make it a breach of fiduciary duty for the managers and directors to spend money on any task not directly related to the scope of their business. You'll have to play with the language a few times to tell the Supreme Court you mean it, but that would work.
-GiH
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.
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.
"After all, that's what married people do"
Apparently you're not very familiar with married couples. ; )
Udder bullshit! Moo!
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.
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.
Good for you Microsoft.
:)
Sounds wrong somehow.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I think the word you are missing there is "some"
From a gay guy whose husband is bi.
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.
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.
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?
Microsoft has supported its LGBT employees since before Google even *existed*.
Nice attempt at trolling, though.
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
Maybe he's protestant.
Except that Microsoft has a long tradition of supporting gays and lesbians going back to 1989.
Otherwise, I might be suspect as well.
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
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
....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.