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."
Well, they are trying to entice apple fanbois to switch to Microsoft. This is a logical marketing move
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.
As much as I personally love bashing MS, the reality is that they've had this position for quite a while now. For instance they gave $100k to support Ref 71 which if passed would allow the everything but marriage bill to be enacted. And IIRC that was hardly the first time they supported the general cause of equality for sexual minorities either.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2010010778_microsoftgave100000to.html
Sorry, Microsoft was well ahead of Google when it comes to gay rights (like giving insurance and other benefits to same-sex domestic partners in 1993 before Google was founded). Read about GLEAM (Gay and Lesbian Employees at Microsoft) to get a concise summary of gay support by Microsoft.
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
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.
Equally as ridiculous: the state involved in the love affairs and relationships of anyone.
I think this is it. The state shouldn't recognize gay marriage because it shouldn't recognize straight marriage. It should recognize civil unions gay or straight and then let whatever religion you are decide to call it marriage.
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.
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.
I am glad to see Microsoft taking this position
Gates has also done the same thing in Saudi Arabia.
Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering.
On one hand: what's the reason two guys want to be recognized as a "marriage"? Not children, as they can't have them, and they're just as capable of raising a kid one of them had with a third party as mere friends as a couple -- it can never be "their" kid, at most of one of them. The uncomfortable truth is that they're after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.
How about:
Being able to visit/make medical decisions for your spouse if they are hospitalized or incapacitated.
Being able to adopt a child together in a way that gives both parents legal parental rights in relation to their child (everything from school permission slips to keeping the child if the spouse dies)
Being considered a spouse in legal proceedings (spousal 5th amendment immunity, inheritance laws, etc.)
Being able to marry a foreigner without fear they will be deported
And since when is an adopted child not the parents' kid? That's not only reprehensible, it's missing the whole point of encouraging marriages as child-rearing units. It's established that gay couples adopt kids with disabilities at a higher rate than straight couples, for example.
Furthermore, we don't question the 80-year old newlyweds, and merely shake our heads and sigh (as opposed to foaming at the mouth about 'threats to traditional values') at celebrity marriages measurable in hours.
We also have huge amounts of legal and social framework set up to accommodate 2-adult family units; enabling the gender bits to be flipped any which way doesn't actually change any of how things work. Opening up the system to accomodate polygamy would open huge cans of worms (an organized crime ring could all get married to each other, and be fully protected from someone turning states' evidence, for example).
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.
As a Christian, I'm against gay marriage from a religious point of view. However as an American, I believe in the freedom of religion and association. You may even choose to not associate with anything. The problem is that marriage is a religious institution sponsored by our federal government. It's a problem because there are all sorts of legal ties to something religious in nature. The implications are huge. It means that the Federal Goverment can dictate the meaning of religious values and not the other way around. I strongly believe the best option is to abstract this union one level apart. That is to say, everyone can have a civil union which grants all the legal benefits without bias. You can still choose to have a religious merriage ceremony after the fact if you wish. Some may want just to be married withough being legally recognized too. Either way should be fair for everyone.
Life is not for the lazy.
Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a personal contract between two people, a life time commitment, recognised by religions. It actually has it's roots in war. In removing the whole village concept of shared responsibility for the children. When a King/Chief decide to launch an extended conflict he could hold a soldier's wife and children as hostage to the soldiers obedience. Also obviously some men could be denied access to women and the king could have access to many women, all based around patriarchal violence. As always religion changed and altered this relationship in many ways to suit, not belief but the requirements of the leadership of the day.
The only thing that needs to change is people should be bound by their word, a little bit of mature adult responsibility. Make a life time commitment, then suck it up, that should be the only one you are ever allowed to make.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen