Microsoft Pushing WA State to Legalize Gay Marriage

[Guest]

[citation][nom]georgieboy79[/nom]Now you are probably just trolling but....Why aren't they lining up to enlist? What are you talking about? The whole point of the repeal was to allow the very many gay servicemen and women who are already in the forces to do their job without fear of reprisals due to their sexual orientation. They can't accept the rest of the world is straight? Hahaha really? I'm pretty sure their parents were straight so they are probably accustomed to straight people by now...[/citation]

Well, this may shock you but new people do join the service---again, if they can finally join up, why aren't they? Just like in the states that grant gay marriage after the initial rush hardly anyone does--New Hampshire started in 2009 and only 1,800 couples have gotten married out of a population of 1.4 million.

 

[omnimodis78]

[citation][nom]n3ard3ath[/nom]Studies are flawed, there are many indicators that prove it is indeed a choice.[/citation]
It's a choice to let others know if you're gay or not, but it's not a choice if you're born gay or straight - and please tell me why anyone born gay should hide themselves? Who are you (literally and figuratively) to tell another human being that they are inferior to you and your beliefs, thus they have no rights or privileges. Even though you have the choice not to discriminate, even that you can't seem to help, and yet your kind actually expects gays to miraculously over-ride their natural instinct of being attracted to the same gender. Bigotry is truly laughable these days!

 

[alcalde]

[citation][nom]sfpeter23[/nom]You think we really do? Rolls eyes......[citation]"Traditional" marriage not only has changed alot, it also appears to have been quite oppressive and unpalatable for quite some time, doesn't it?.[/citation]A little bit of a overkill to write a book for a reply, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say marriage is this oppressive, outdated, useless institution---and then turn around and say it's one of the most important things gays could be given.[/citation]

I don't know about you, but I'm not aware of any modern laws that forbid people from bearing children... if that were the case, the Duggars would be sentenced to life.

*I* didn't say marriage is an oppressive, useless institution.. I said and demonstrated that our conception of marriage has changed very much over time in opposition to the "marriage has always been..." or "I'm in favor of traditional marriage" replies. The point was that at various times people could claim that "marriage is only between whites" or "marriage is between one man and his property".

As is inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."


In regards to the length of my replies, I'm not one of the people who simply makes an unsubstantiated claim and feels that has the equal weight of a fact. Since I believe things for reasons, I feel required to document those reasons and don't expect people to believe things merely because I've claimed them.

 

[alcalde]

[citation][nom]sfpeter23[/nom]Well, this may shock you but new people do join the service---again, if they can finally join up, why aren't they? Just like in the states that grant gay marriage after the initial rush hardly anyone does--New Hampshire started in 2009 and only 1,800 couples have gotten married out of a population of 1.4 million.[/citation]

You're not following the logic here... how do you know how many gay people are joining the military if sexual orientation isn't recorded anywhere? You don't know this any more than you know how many Lutherans or Linux users are joining the military.

From the 2000 census counting households with two unrelated people of the same gender as a couple we get

Total Number of Gay Couples: 594,391
Number of People in a Couple: 1.2 Million
State With the Most Couples: California (92,138)
State With the Least Couples: North Dakota (703)
Highest Concentration of Gay Couple (% of all couples): Washington, D.C. (1.29%)
Lowest Concentration of Gay Couples (% of all couples): North and South Dakota (.22%)

In that case, your "only" 1800 gay marriages in New Hampshire is close to what you would expect if New Hampshire had a share of gay couples equal to its percent of the share of the U.S. population. You're also not considering things like couples in New Hampshire might have already gone to nearby Vermont or even Connecticut to get married, which legalized it earlier.

All of it is moot, though; a right is not predicated on how many people plan to exercise it. Should heterosexual marriage be revoked because of the 50%+ divorce rate? Now that's a statistic that says a lot more clearly that here's a group that doesn't really want marriage...

 

[aion_w]

I just don`t see why the states has/have/got to support gay/lesbian rights...did you all ever thought about the rest of the world? or people? What advantage does it give us for living among gay/lesbian? If the states is really legalizing this...I am 100% sure the rest of the world will follow...Adam and Eve...Why change something that does not need to have a change at all...My point is, How would normal people feel about that? I don`t want get in a strip club and see muffu*ing gay working the pole instead of womens

 

[alcalde]

[citation][nom]omnimodis78[/nom]It's a choice to let others know if you're gay or not, but it's not a choice if you're born gay or straight - and please tell me why anyone born gay should hide themselves? Who are you (literally and figuratively) to tell another human being that they are inferior to you and your beliefs, thus they have no rights or privileges. Even though you have the choice not to discriminate, even that you can't seem to help, and yet your kind actually expects gays to miraculously over-ride their natural instinct of being attracted to the same gender. Bigotry is truly laughable these days![/citation]

When Dragon Age 2 came out one game player posted on its forums that he felt that "male, straight" players were no longer being catered to because in DA1 it felt that all of the secondary characters were designed to appeal to them, but in DA2 there were things like a gay character and a strong female character. He suggested the developers should include a "no homosexuality" button that players could click to get rid of all of that.

The game's writer, David Gaider, replied "If there is any doubt why [catering to a broad audience] might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as 'political correctness' if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them; what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, and everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.... the person who says that the only way to please them is to restrict options for others is, if you ask me, the one who deserves it least."

 

[schambers]

I fully believe that gays should have equal rights as straight people. They have the same right to marry any person of the opposite sex...same as straight people. Straight people aren't allowed to marry a person of the same sex either. I'd say that is equal. Also, discrimination is aimed to help those with something they have no choice over (Race, color, national origin, gender and age). Being Gay is a "sexual preference" and a CHOICE. It's no different that deciding to take up smoking. Those believing gays are born gay is bologna. Discrimination laws don't, and should never list sexual preference in a protected discrimination law. As a business owner, I understand I cannot fire or hire anybody base on their Race, color, national origin, gender and age, but I certainly should have the right to fire or not hire someone based on a their personal preferences that I do not agree with such as being a smoker or being gay.

On the other hand, and as many have said in this thread, I'm for giving gay couples the same rights as a traditional marriage so long as a gay marriage is given a different title. I believe "civil union" was mentioned. That seems appropriate.

 

[schambers]

Furthermore, any marriage between two members of the same sex should be joined standing in front of a politician...not a priest.

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]sfpeter23[/nom]Well, this may shock you but new people do join the service---again, if they can finally join up, why aren't they? Just like in the states that grant gay marriage after the initial rush hardly anyone does--New Hampshire started in 2009 and only 1,800 couples have gotten married out of a population of 1.4 million.[/citation]

Let's go over the math: half of those 1.4 million are over 55 or under 20 and thus unlikely to marry, that leaves 0.7 million people, or 0.35 million couples. If, on average, everyone marries once between ages 20 and 55 then there will be 10.000 marriages a year, gay couples, apparently, represent 900 of those. This means that if gay couples are as likely to marry as straight couples then the gay population is 9% of the total population, it's probably more like 5% so gay couples are 80% more likely to marry in New Hampshire. I think the numbers I've assumed here all very reasonable and there is a 45% margin between the above numbers and a scenario where gays are less willing to marry.

 

[mugiebahar]

[citation][nom]sfpeter23[/nom]Microsoft shouldn't take a stance, it's a corporation, not a political action group. This is only about political correctness and appearances.[/citation]


You didn't know "Corporations are people" you have to watch The Colbert Report, lol.

 

[kewlmunky]

[citation][nom]zoenphlux[/nom]The more you push this subject the more ppl will accept it. The more that accept it equates to less babies being born and raised. Therefore the less total amount of customers. No matter how much you dont like it or disagree with it. Homosexuals hurt the future of humans because they cant produce offspring. That will never change, heterosexual activity will ALWAYS have to happen to make a baby in some form or another(sperm donor?). As far as business goes it will hurt business in the long run from less ppl in the world to buy their stuff. Wont happen today or tomorrow, but it will happen the more wide spread it goes.[/citation]

By your logic that means that in areas where gay marriage is banned the gays in that area decide to go straight and have children, which isn't true. They will stay the way they are. A lot of gay couples adopt children or find donors to have a child still.

 

[madooo12]

[citation][nom]bobusboy[/nom].Additionally you talk like homosexuality is a choice (which it isn't), this is just another indicator of what you don't know and I can't fault you for that.[/citation]
actually it is, if it wasn't none of those guys would be born and they would've disappeared completely

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]madooo12[/nom]actually it is, if it wasn't none of those guys would be born and they would've disappeared completely[/citation]

You obviously can't be bothered to check the science and facts before you blurt something out...

 

[Guest]

Really gets me how many of the people here spout off endless numbers and factoids they cut and paste from Wikipedia.......as if how much you write matters, not what you write.

The simple truth is marriage is between a man and a woman. Screaming can't change that. Yelling equality for something that doesn't exist can't change that. Twisting words anyway possible---marriage isn't important so it's incredibly important they have it--can't change that.

All that can happen is getting "marriage" declared between gays by legislative fiat, which has been defeated every time it's been put to a popular vote. And back to the activist judges and legislators to make up some other way to push it through. And back again.

In the end what is accomplished? Being "married" has all the same issues as with straight people--it won't mean their relationships will be more stable or last longer, it won't solve all their problems or guarantee happiness, and getting divorced will is anything be even uglier.

But most of all, it won't make people think they're normal and the "same" as everyone else.

 

[groveborn]

Should gays be allowed to marry? What is marriage besides a contract. Gays seem to be able to make other contracts. The real question then, is why are they not permitted this contract?

The "bible" says homosexuality is wrong. Sure it does. The only problem is that it also says that one should be able to sell one's daughter. Not only their daughter, but their daughter's virginity. It is no sin, biblically, to have sex with children. Indeed, 13 is the proper age for marriage (and thus child rearing).

So people are concerned about a couple of dudes sticking parts of themselves into other dudes (who really cares when women like women?), but not the implication that children are appropriate for bedtime fun?

How about some priorities. Let the dudes love each other. It can't hurt you (or me, or anyone else of significance).

 

[alcalde]

[citation][nom]sfpeter23[/nom]Really gets me how many of the people here spout off endless numbers and factoids they cut and paste from Wikipedia.......as if how much you write matters, not what you write.The simple truth is marriage is between a man and a woman. Screaming can't change that. Yelling equality for something that doesn't exist can't change that. Twisting words anyway possible---marriage isn't important so it's incredibly important they have it--can't change that.All that can happen is getting "marriage" declared between gays by legislative fiat, which has been defeated every time it's been put to a popular vote. And back to the activist judges and legislators to make up some other way to push it through. And back again.In the end what is accomplished? Being "married" has all the same issues as with straight people--it won't mean their relationships will be more stable or last longer, it won't solve all their problems or guarantee happiness, and getting divorced will is anything be even uglier. But most of all, it won't make people think they're normal and the "same" as everyone else.[/citation]

Tsk-tsk... all those pesky "numbers" and "facts"... meanwhile, in contrast to all I explained to you both about an unsupported claim being different from a fact and that the marriage has changed enormously throughout history (heck, even people choosing who they marry themselves is a relatively modern invention and I have one Indian friend who did end up in a marriage his parents arranged for him when he was a kid), you spout out "The simple truth is marriage is between a man and a woman. "

No justification, no explanation, no facts, no logic to connect the facts, and in keeping with your constant complaints about the length of posts, no respect for your fellow posters to address their claims and rebuttals the way we gave you that respect by not ignoring the points you made.

Here's a hint: if the best you have is to declare "It just IS", then you have no leg to stand on other than something in your character that makes you want to make other people's lives miserable just to let you avoid the cognitive dissonance of your narrow world view needing to expand just a crack. You remind me of the lawyers for the proponents of Proposition 8 in California when its legality was being disputed in court. They ended up needing to strike every single one of their witnesses from actually testifying except one, and that one testified that there were no known differences between gay and straight parents and no evidence that children growing up in a gay household would be negatively affected in any way. When the proponents were forced to actually present facts and logic for their position in a way that didn't involve religion, they simply were incapable of presenting a case before the court.

You also reveal your inner ugliness in the last sentence of your post... that's all opposition to gay marriage ever is. There's simply no ability to rationally defend it. What boggles my mind though is that you were shameless enough to post this in public.

 

[alcalde]

[citation][nom]againstGAYmarriage[/nom]"There will be gnashing of teeth" - Once our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ comes.[/citation]

I think he's a bit late... "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28 Either that, or The Highlander was a documentary.

But if he does ever show up descending from the sky, NORAD will have a lock on him before he even gets close to either Jerusalem or Vatican City. He'll have to contend with squadrons of F-22s, Eurofighters, Typhoons, Jas-39 Gripens and Rafales, and given all of his piercings and holes that probably degrade his areodynamics and that flowing white robe which has to be a killer to his radar cross-section, I don't think he stands a chance. Even if the Holy Spirit proves to be a valuable radar decoy, that halo has to be a beacon to heat-seeking missiles. Earth 1, invasion from the skies 0!

 

[shat]

Let the government only acknowledges civil unions. then let the churches acknowledge marriage.

 

[shat]

[citation][nom]shat[/nom]Let the government only acknowledge civil unions. Then let the churches acknowledge marriage.[/citation]

 

[Guest]

This has nothing to do with rights for anyone. This is all about Microsoft and Microsoft alone. They are looking for anything that is going to work to their way of making revenue for their company. They have already said in the past that they have no problems with gays and lesbians in their workplace. This is just a added incentive for themselves to make them look good and have a positive outlook for themselves. period.