“The chief executive of Microsoft, Steven A. Ballmer, sent what company officials described as an unusual e-mail message on Friday evening to roughly 35,000 employees in the United States, defending Microsoft’s widely criticized decision not to support an antidiscrimination bill for gay people in Washington State this year,” Sarah Kershaw reports for The New York Times.
“The e-mail message came as company officials, inundated by internal messages from angry employees, withering attacks on the Web and biting criticism from gay rights groups, sought to quell rancor following the disclosure this week that the company, which had supported the bill in past years, did not do so this year. Critics argue that the decision resulted from pressure from a prominent local evangelical Christian church,” Kershaw reports.
“In his message, posted on several Web logs on Saturday and confirmed by company officials, Mr. Ballmer wrote that he had done ‘a lot of soul searching over the past 24 hours.’ He said that he and Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, both personally supported the bill but that the company had decided not to take an official stance on the legislation this year. He said they were pondering the role major corporations should play in larger social debates,” Kershaw reports.
“‘We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike – when should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and when should it not?’ he wrote. ‘What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?’ Mr. Ballmer described the antidiscrimination measure as posing a ‘very difficult issue for many people, with strong emotions on all sides.’ He wrote, ‘both Bill and I actually both personally support this legislation,’ adding, ‘but that is my personal view, and I also know that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me,'” Kershaw reports.
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Gay and lesbian advocacy group asks Microsoft to give back award; some call for switch to Macs – April 23, 2005
Stay out of politics!! That’s the best move. Someone will hate you.
Translation: we caved to the religious right.
Pussy.
Hairbo, the “Religious Right” IS right. Your disrespectful, disgusting use of the word “pussy” to describe them is shameful and idiotic. Learn some manner and be tolerant of majority views of social issues why don’t ya?
I don’t believe Microsoft’s explanation that they did not cave in to pressure from religious conservatives. No company likes to be boycotted. But, as I noted previously, Microsoft is basically boycott-proof. Considering Apple, like most tech firms, is just as (or more) gay-friendly than MS, conservatives who boycott diversity conscious firms have few alternatives to buy from firms that still discriminate.
I’ve heard Ballmer say some really wacky things in the past, but here he makes a lot of sense, and he’s right. Microsoft makes computer software, and it’s not their job to support gay legislation. Which is ridiculous anyway, in my opinion, because gays have the same civil rights as everyone else. Merely disliking homosexuality does not qualify as persecution, so these people need to get their panties out of a wad and leave Microsoft alone.
Think of the awful precedent it would set if special interest groups had their way with every corporation that did not bow to their whims. So kudos to Microsoft – I still think your software sucks, but you did the right thing.
MDN Magic Word – “picture” As in….
No, wait, you really don’t want to picture this…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?”
Well, by not supporting it, as they have done for similar legislation in the past, they took a position that offends deeply held beliefs.
Smack, you gotta be joking! Sure, Hairbo didn’t have to use the P-word, but if you think for one second that religious and political conservatives are civil and polite when discussing homosexuality, you’ve been living under a rock.
Secondly, ‘majority opinion’ has no business dictating the civil and moral rights of others. No one in the majority has (or should have) the right to vote for or against the inate civil rights of those in a minority. Separate and unequal has been tried before. It was wrong then, and it’s still wrong today.
The “Religious Right” is NOT in the majority.
Also, if you reread the message, I believe that Hairbo was calling Ballmer a “pussy”. I might not agree with the use of the term, but I certainly agree with the sentiment.
Smack, from now on you get to ride at the back of the bus. How’s that sound?
As I told my grandson when he questioned me regarding Gay Pride Week at his high school, “Just stand up for American Pride Week, no-one needs to know what you do in your bedroom. You can be whatever persuasion you like but keep it between yourself and your partner.”
Sex belongs in the bedroom not the boardroom.
smack, because its time now for you to be scared of us.
Unfortunately, if someone asks me what I did over the weekend I’m going to say “I went to a park, etc., with my partner.” That has NOTHING to do with sex and nothing to do with my bedroom. It has everything to do with getting your head out of the sand and realizing that your way is not the only way. I’m sure you think nothing of saying “My wife and I had a nice weekend.” And I’m proud to say “My partner and I had a nice weekend.” So I’m NOT keeping my relationship in the bedroom, because my relationship is a very significant part of my life, just as I’m sure yours is a significant part of your life. Correct yourself and tell your grandson to be proud of whatever he is and to stand up against people who want to push others into the closet.
Give me a brake! What the hell is wrong with the word ‘pussy’? as in coward. I love you guys, as in ‘one comunity’ but some of you should stick your high moral/religious views up your pussy
Equal rights for all. Be nice. World peace. Vegitarians taste better.
Balmer did the right thing. I wonder what else he found in dusty attic of his soul.
>your way is not the only way>
You can’t possibly know what my way is.
It’s the Mac way.
Enjoy yourself, you’re going to be dead a long time.
do to yourself as your name says, Smack, for several grevious uses of logic.
First, use of the word “p*ssy” was not about the religious right, but about Balmer. Please read posts before reacting.
Second, even if the religious right was the majority (which I seriously to doubt), being the majority does not make it right. Take the voices shouting on this site alone about the “majority” or computer users not using the “right” system. For a social issue, the “majority” of the southern U.S used to think slavery was “right.”
Third, the point of the bill is for tolerance. I find it very funny that you would use that concept for your argument.
Finally, you might want to learn some “manner” (sic), along with some editing skills
thebigkahuna, you really have no clue as to what you are talking about stating that, “…gays have the same civil rights as everyone else.”
Except in a few states, the following discrimations against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons (GLBT) are perfectly legal in America:
* Employers can fire (or not hire) an employee simply for being GLBT.
* Landlords can refuse to rent an apartment to someone simply for being GLBT.
* Hotel owners can refuse accomodations to guests simply for being GLBT.
* The US military bans service by those who openly identify themselves as GLBT. (Just try hiding your heterosexuality and remaining celibate throughout your entire enlistment!)
* GLBT couples have no legal protections or rights afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage. (How is it ‘right’ to deny long-term committed gay couples these rights when any opposite-sex couple can meet and marry the same day and instantly be afforded over 1,000 rights and protections.)
* In several countries, simply being gay is cause for the death penalty.
Anyone who thinks that GLBT persons already have the same civil rights as everyone else is an ignorant fool.
Get informed:
Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
http://hrc.org/
Freedom to Marry
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/
Human Rights Watch
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=lgbt
Amnesty International
http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/index.do
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
http://www.sldn.org/templates/index.html
The Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies
http://www.iglss.org
WHO CARES!!!
…this is MacDAILYnews not MacGaylyNews…who cares what microsoft does regarding whatever. They could support seal-clubbing, it still wouldn’t change the fact that they make POS software!
g
Smack, reading someone write, “The religious right is right” and then in the next sentence telling someone to be “tolerant” was hilarious… Religion is the least tolerant thing on this planet.
Publicly held companies can and should use their money, power, and influence to affect social and legislative change that they believe benefits the company, its employees, and its shareholders.
If they don’t believe this change benefits the company, then Ballmer and Gates should contribute personally (they have and continue to do so), and encourage others to do the same, but not involve the corporation.
40 years ago some corporations backed civil rights legislation to allow blacks the right not to be discriminated in the workplace. Prior to that, you could be fired for being black. (Actually you probably would never had been hired in the first place because you could not “hide” it). That was considered brave. In retrospect, it was also right. Should those corporations have been silent about it?
Today, a person can get fired for being gay. The company may not know they were gay when they were hired, but if they were “found out”, they can be fired for that simple reason. The Bush administration initally backed that same principle for government, but later backed off. Why should you be allowed to be fired for being gay??! Should you be fired for being Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Athiest/Agnostic/Muslim, etc? NO!
Despite what has been written in this forum, gays are not looking to be MORE EQUAL. They simply don’t want their company to have the right to fire them or discriminate against them (ie promotions, raises, etc) simply for the fact that they are gay.
If you haven’t done so already, you should read the bill.
It isn’t trying to give gays any extra civil rights. It is an anti-discrimination bill intended to insure that gays have the SAME civil rights as everybody else.
It PROTECTS rights – it doesn’t grant anything new, or anything special to ANY group.
If Micro$oft isn’t going to support it now (and business shouldn’t be involved in politics) – they shouldn’t have been supporting it ever. They caved big time. Bunch of wusses.
gforce:
“…this is MacDAILYnews not MacGaylyNews…who cares what microsoft does regarding whatever. They could support seal-clubbing, it still wouldn’t change the fact that they make POS software!”
Exactly.
I’m conservative and Christian. I have gay friends. I may not agree with their beleifs (and vice versa), but they’re still my friends. And I still CHOOSE Apple over M$ and others even though Al Gore is on the board or whatever position he holds. I learned a long time ago boycotting rarely works because NO company is perfect. You can find something to hate in every company, regardless of your political, moral, religious, etc. beliefs.
MDN Magic Word: love, as in we’re all Mac users (-trolls), lets try to get along and not flame each other.
Corporations have no business in SOCIAL ISSUES. I’m sick and tired of the vocal MINORITY getting all the support in this country…. It’s high time for Social Issues to be resolved at the ballot box instead of through “preferential legislation”…..
G5, please read the bill and tell me if you see any preferential treatment.
Looks like MDN has found a good subject until the next presidential elections
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Microsoft caved. Anyone here feel less inclined to buy their products? Or more?
I thought not.
God! I can’t take religious nuts neither slaker pissheads saying ‘who cares’. Yes this is a mac forum, but every time that something comes up with moral bollocks everybody freaks. One reality! Stick the bill up their… I also hate the ” I’ve got gay friends but I don’t believe in their.. BOLLOCKS! Go Finger yourself and be HUMAN!
Maricon,
Not only do I have gay friends of which I don’t agree with their lifestyle (In fact, the most important and influential woman in my life other than my mother is gay.) But I also have friends that I think drink way too much. I’ve got friends that I think use drugs too much. I’ve got friends that I think sleep around too much. I’ve got friends that use the wrong OS on their computer. I’ve got friends who are followers of completely different religions. My best friend is an atheist.
So what part of those statements don’t you like? And I am a conservative follower of a major world religion. All of my beliefs and voting habits would have me branded as the “religious right.” All of my friends know my beliefs and I know theirs and we are still friends. I believe many “liberals” screaming about intolerance need to look in the mirror.
maricon:
So you don’t like religious nuts? Yeah, and you may not like vanilla ice cream either. You may not like children being mutilated. You may not like genocide.
But in a universe where man is the only one making the rules, then they are all just personal preferences. Hitler was wrong, I prefer red shirts to blue shirts–same difference, both are simply preferences.
So, you hate religious nuts and religious nuts hate you–same difference. Just two opinions, no one is right or wrong. Let the strong survive, survival of the fittest. See Nietzche, Camus, Sartre, etc. if you have any questions. (And if your going to start spouting the normal non-theistic “natural law”, you better do your homework on Kant’s postulates for the categorical imperative first). Otherwise, you may want to ask yourself the same final question Sartre did.
The intellectual infancy as well as logical and existential incompatibility of most “liberal nuts” is enough to make any intelligent, sane person vomit.
I really don’t understand what all the fuss is about. A small proportion of the population like to go about things a little differently. What they do really doesn’t affect the majority in any way. The majority are not restricted in their lives by the actions of the minority. If the majority really think that the minority are wrong-headed in their choice, they should just let them live with their choice, and enjoy the fact that they are happy with their own choice.
A bit like Mac users and Windows users. Now then, let’s have a debate about how, because they are the majority, Windows users (and Microsoft) should be able to dictate to Mac users how they use their computers.
MW “truth”
Uh, “Who’s Tolerant,” just a suggestion here… you could stand to spend less time judging all of your friends. Then maybe other people wouldn’t think you’re intolerant. Just a thought. And maybe you should think twice about labeling liberal’s espousal of tolerance as “screaming.” Again, it might sort of reinforce this picture of you as an intolerant kind of guy. Anyway, it’s just a thought.
I say, we’re all just people. We shouldn’t have one set of rights for white heterosexual male Christians and one for others. We’ve made some progress on race and gender. We still have a long way to go on religious tolerance and GLTB rights. We shouldn’t be rounding up the Muslims and sending them to Gitmo, and we shouldn’t be firing or evicting people for admitting that they’re gay. It’s up to all of us, including people, corporations, churches, and so on, to work to fix this.
Microsoft pussied. There’s no question about it.
Johannes Climacus:
The problem with the “religious nuts” is that they are not prepared to just leave it at mutual dislike. Their position is that if they hate me, I must be destroyed.
The meaning of “liberal” is “allowing”. If I don’t like your opinions or lifestyle, I still allow you to have them. The “religious nuts” don’t have any such qualms. If they don’t like your opinions or lifestyle, they’re determined to stomp you out. That’s what makes them “nuts”.
Johannes Climacus,
Your argument can be boiled down to: “Whatever I believe, is right.” And I believe you are wrong. So you are.
QED
perfusionista: The only problem with that philosophy is, if a certain lifestyle or practice is immoral (say, homosexuality or pedophilia or abortion or cannibalism), then it doesn’t matter how few people practice it — no one who believes it is immoral wants to see even a single law passed that would give it any sanction or implied endorsement. Otherwise it becomes more deeply engrained in the culture, and thus a greater challenge to raising moral-oriented families within the culture.
As long as people disagree about whether homosexuality is immoral, there will never be anything but superficial toleration at best.
On the other hand, a truly kind and loving person can still treat others with different lifestyles (whether homosexuals or whatever) with kindness, and there is no doubt that kindness is in short supply in this world.
Microsoft does something many of you disagree with and they’re “pussies”.
Anyone find that description in regards to gay rights support ironic?
How’s that for “tolerance”. Especially combined with blaming it on the “religious nuts”. Nice.
Don’t want a gay lifestyle promoted? You are a “religious nut”/ “pussy”. It’s all so backwards (so to speak) and insane…..
Mac User, progressives all want to be tolerant. But being tolerant does NOT require acceptance of bigotry. In fact, tolerance demands resistance to intolerance. There’s nothing hypocritical about it. What’s hypocritical is bastardizing the legacy of Jesus Christ to promote bigotry.
I believe that’s the sort of thing the Third Commandment is talking about when it says “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in Vain”. It’s not talking about saying “Oh Jesus!” but about actually weilding the Word of God as a weapon to do Satan’s Will.
Me, immoral is a judgement call. Just because you say something is immoral doesn’t make it so and throwing homosexuality in with cannabalism is just disgusting, and in my opinion immoral.
we deserve to be thought of just like anyone else! now put your 9-year-old in my car so I can take him camping for the weekend…
Corporations DO have a responsibility to society.
They gained the right to be treated as effictively “citizens” under the law, with all the protections and rights that that offers.
As such a corporation cannot just say, we are a company, society is not our problem.
To those that say that that is the case, then why do you same people object to the existence of pornography companies, and companies that sell unsafe toys to children? Taking your logic, these companies are just corporations, and as such society is NOT their problem, and therefor they, like Microsoft can do and “say” whatever they want WITHOUT considering the consequences for society.
YOU CANNOT cut it both ways – you end up with nothing!
My 2 cents,
Luke
“Ignorance” hardly seems strong enough to describe some of the comments above. Homosexuality IS NOT a choice, or a preference, or a lifestyle, or a moral question! Period. It is an orientation, the same as heterosexuality is an orientation. Unless you personally weighed your options and the chose to be heterosexual, you have no standing to claim that gays choose to be gay. That said, regardless if anyone chooses their sexual idenity, it should make no difference in how people are treated under the law. If we are not ALL equal, no one is equal. It’s pathetic that some people like to compare sexual identity to alcoholism, pedophelia, drug use, or any other vice. Sexual orientation, be it gay or straight, is ‘matter of fact’. It is an inherent characteristic like color, height, age, sex, or race. Period. Again, you have no credibility to claim otherwise unless you personally chose to be straight, or believe that you could change your orientation at will.
Religious beliefs are chosen, but that doesn’t mean they are any less protected under the law. Personally, I’m tolerant of various religious beliefs, just as long as the ‘believers’ don’t attempt to force their beliefs on everyone else. That’s the problem with religious conservatives. They don’t accept that everyone else has a right to live their lives as they see fit and have equal rights to do so under the law. They’d rather change the laws to match their beliefs and limit the rights of those they don’t agree with. Sounds very Taliban-like, to me.
Rob,
Your links do not show any evidence of discrimination against gays in America. And that you brought up the fact that gays are (wrongly) killed in other parts of the world by their governments illustrates my point beautifully: it doesn’t happen here. You have the same constitutional rights, and can pursue life, liberty, and happiness, just as the rest of us.
I have been an employer for different companies (in liberal California, no less), and I have yet to see or hear of anyone, anywhere withhold a job from a gay person. I have had gay bosses and gay employees. There is no barrier there.
By the way, your ad hominem attack on me is a clear indication that your arguments are all bluster and no substance.
still looking for that ‘gay gene’, huh? homosexuality is a preference – not a result of creation or evolution. why would natural selection continue a genetic strain that doesn’t reproduce itself? don’t be embarassed… just accept your choices. there are sliding scales of natural masculinity and femininity among both men and women, but the notion to try and mix’n’match reproductive and gastrointestinal body parts came from one place and one place only – the human mind. don’t try and hide behind a mythical gay gene! just be proud of your choices, bend over, and say “put ‘er there!”
Who are you say that homosexuality is a choice? Did you coose to be straight or gay? Or are you just the way you are because that is who you are.
Your statement is ludicrous. And again I must ask, who the heck are YOU to decide?
Figures he cracks under pressure just like the machines his company builds.
<i>I’m conservative and Christian. I have gay friends. I may not agree with their beleifs (and vice versa), but they’re still my friends.<>
Sounds like the opening to a big “but” … the “(and vice versa)” [sic] says it all.
Yes, gays are people too.
But….what do happy gays and “the man in the moon” have in common?
Neither exist.
God didn’t make us to live a homosexual lifestyle, and most people can easily see that it doesn’t lead to peace and joy in life. Some things in life don’t need amazing explainations to reveal that there is a problem – they can be observed pretty easily.
Having said that – I don’t condemn anyone for a gay lifestyle – it is a sin like many others. Most “sins” seem to be things that actually end up hurting ourselves – it’s not that God is a big joykill against fun, but I do believe he might know a thing or 2 about why/how he made us (see the bible).
I will say again for those who choose not to read it the first time: I (and no Christian I know) condemns someone who is gay – but I won’t say that it is the right lifestyle. A relationship with a loving Jesus comes first and Jesus accepts us as he finds us – if we will just turn to him.
by the way, just to tie this in to an apple/microsoft item:
I see the successful promotion of the Gay lifestyle in this country for the last 25 years to be very similar to Microsoft’s unnatural growth into the company it is today.
1. Marketing triumph over
2. Inferior product
3. Led with disiinformation and a
4. Willing public to help promote the agenda to a
5. World domination
Actually I just threw that last one in there… but you know, it kind of holds up!
Macuser 47,
Who are you to condemn anyone for anything? You’re certainly not Christ.
Who are you to decide a sin? You’re a person like any other. No better, no worse.
If Jesus accepts us as he finds us, then he accepts someone for being gay – because that is who they are and how they were made.
Who are you to decide that being gay is a “lifestyle”? Did you decide to be “straight”? Or is that just who you are?
Get off of your sanctimonious high-horse.
thebigkahuna, you must be as blind and dumb as you are ignorant.
mac user 47, I can only refer you to my previous comments, and you can take your bible thumping BS and suckonit!
I so sick of the twisted, lame-brained, idiotic, abysmally stupid comments like “smack”‘s:
The idiocy goes like this: “if you are intolerant of other people’s intolerant prejudices, than you are being intolerant and hypocritical.” Wow! That’s such brilliant rhetoric!
Then there’s G5Mac’s tyranny of the majority: “solve it at the ballet box.” Oh that’s a great idea! And if we followed that logic, then we would likely still have slavery.
Obtain some enlightenment, people!!!
The Bible was not written by God, but rather it was written by fallible men with limited knowlege in ancient times. As most Christians do, you can select and/or discard dozens of passages to suit whatever you choose to believe. If you want to live strictly by the Bible, fine, but don’t ‘cram it down the throats’ of everyone else who may believe otherwise.
A column of interest on this subject:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0504/25/A09-160784.htm
This is a perpetually heated topic that will have no resolution. It just goes to show that MDN will put any garbage that they feel like writing on at a whim. This topic should have 0 comments total, or disallow them for the sake of EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION. This topic is much too deep for a comments war.
Rob,
I may be all sorts of things, but none of that has anything to do with the validity of your arguments, which is nonexistent right now.
Your continued use of ad hominems strongly suggests that you have no real evidence, just a bunch of assertions. Instead of calling me blind, dumb, and ignorant, how about proving me wrong?
Mac user 47 said “But….what do happy gays and “the man in the moon” have in common?
Neither exist.”
The old jokes are the best, eh! However, I’m very happy with my life, so put me down in the “doesn’t exist” category.
BTW, someone else posted about the gay gene, which I personally think is a bunch of crap. Every foetus starts life as female. Roughly half of them change to become male in the early stages of the pregnancy. Sounds like a recipe for a muddle in the middle to me.
So, thebigkahuna has spoken and since you have personally not witnessed any discrimination it just doesn’t exist. Case closed. NOT! Just open your eyes and do a little research. I gave you several sources of information and you dismissed them. I’m not gonna waste my time on your ignorance of the facts.
Here you go bigkahuna…just a few additional resources for you on discrimination in the US…that’s all I got time for…
HRC Report – Documenting Discrimination:
http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publications1/Documenting_Discrimination/documentingdiscrimination.pdf
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/10629495.htm?1c
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144375,00.html
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1032
http://www.lambdalegal.org/
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsMain.cfm
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/workplace.html
PS…I have no doubt that you have not personally witnessed employment discrimination against gays, seeing that you live in California – one of the few states that makes it illegal.
Re: The claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
The American Psychological Association:
“The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”
“The literature that classifies homosexuality and bisexuality as mental illness has been found to be methodologically unsound. Gonsiorek (1991) reviewed this literature and found serious methodological flaws including unclear definition of terms, inaccurate classification of subjects, inappropriate comparison of groups, discrepant sampling procedures, an ignorance of confounding social factors, and questionable outcome measures. The results from these flawed studies have been used to support theories of homosexuality as mental illness and/or arrested psychosexual development. Although these studies concluded that homosexuality is a mental illness, they have no valid empirical support and serve as the foundation for beliefs that lead to inaccurate representations of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.”
The American Psychiatric Association:
“The APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to re-pathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.”
“Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association calls on all international health organizations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries, to urge the repeal in their own country of legislation that penalizes homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. And further, the APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur.”
The American Counseling Association:
The American Counseling Association has adopted a resolution that states that it “opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation.”
The above link to Intervention Magazine’s article appears to be broken…here’s the complete link:
Military Policy on Gays is Costly and Dangerous:
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1032&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
If neither works as a link, try copying and pasting the URL into your browser.
no politically involved gay man will ever admit that his decision to enjoy anal sex is a choice – because that admission would preclude any future special treatment by america law. gays want to be able to force churches to sanction and perform their marriages on constitutional grounds, regardless of their denomination and beliefs, and you want special status under the law as a ‘protected minority’. you know this will never be voted for in the legislature, so you want unelected judges to push it through as a constitutional issue. hence the phobia of ever admitting that you just like being gay. no group in this country is so afraid of the results of their choices as the gay community. “It has to be my DNA! I would never CHOOSE to be this way!” grow up.
Apparently, ‘Choices’ has chosen to be ingnorant, bigoted, and uneducated. Sad that you can only see sexual acts and not living human beings.
I freely admit that one chooses who their partners are and whether and how they have sex. But no one chooses their sexual orientation. A young person who realizes their sexual orientation at 13 years old, but doesn’t have sex until they are 21, was no less gay or straight before they had sex then after. A person who goes through a period of 10 years of celibacy is no less gay or straight during that time than a person who had sex every day.
And, yes, sometimes it takes ‘unelected judges’ to uphold the Contstitution and overrule bad laws enacted by Congress. Minorities have rights that cannot be taken away by the majority, regardless of public opinion. Thank God!
yes, once again, the homosexual lobby chooses to preface any remarks with name-calling – the hallmark of a frustrated argument
I would counter your latter, more refined comments with the argument that no one realizes anything of profound importance with certainty at 13. Early adolescence is a time of raging hormonal influences, withering peer pressure, and a whole series of confusing social experiences. Saying to 13-year-olds that they should already know their sexual orientation is actively recruiting for the gay lifestyle. To say to a teenager that you have a natural, inborn urge to use your gastrointestinal system for sexual pleasure is nonsense. It is a sexual PREFERENCE.
Rob, nicely put.
Choices – you should look at the legislation that began this thread. It does NOT provide special minority protection for ANY group. It is simply intended to ensure that everybody has the SAME protections under the law. Not special – just the same. It is intended to ensure equality under the law – equality that at present is lacking.
Who are you to decide that the being gay is a choice anyway? There is no such thing as a “gay lifestyle”, anymore than there is a “straight lifestyle”. There are only people living their own lives and being the way that God intended them to be.
Oh, hay…cool…I’m the ‘homosexual lobby’!! I’ve been promoted! WooHoo!
I didn’t call you names ‘Choices’…”ingnorant, bigoted, and uneducated” simply describes your comments, thoughts, and beliefs. And definitely describes the comments in your latest post. Now if I said you were a “Dumb Trailer Trash Redneck Sheep Fu*king Idiot”, that would be name calling and I wouldn’t do that.
Surely you you are joking about the ‘recruiting’ comment. That’s the biggest BullS**t fear of religious zealots, and you appear to have drank every drop of the special kool aid they fed you. There’s no such thing as recruiting. I suppose you’re gonna say the straights recruited you, but you were on the fence as a teen and thought maybe you could be gay if just the right recruiter offered you a lollipop? Puhleeze!
In response to the following stupid comment: But….what do happy gays and “the man in the moon” have in common? Neither exist.
Really? Gays are unhappy? I wonder why.
Couldn’t be because of persistent persecution by big-mouthed bigots on the Christian right, could it? Couldn’t be because of constant fear of gay-bashing, could it? Or institutional prejudice written into our laws? Or anything like that?
A friend of mine in high school was gay. He was a good guy with a bright future. Now he’s dead. He was beaten to death by right-wing bigots. Is he happy? No, I don’t think so. He’s dead. To hear you spout off about how gays aren’t happy just sickens me. It’s like somebody snickering that slaves weren’t happy. How moronic can you get?
If you keep your bigotry to yourself at least you won’t be such a big part of the problem.
“gays want to be able to force churches to sanction and perform their marriages on constitutional grounds, regardless of their denomination and beliefs”
That is a bald-faced lie. If your church does not want to perform the ceremony, I’m quite happy to go to one that does — no constitutional issue involved. There are churches who are open to marrying gay people; I happen to attend one. And there’s always a Justice of the Peace.
Please look up the 10 commandments and pay special attention to the one about false witness.
For anyone interested in knowing that not all Christians are fundamentalists, envangelicals, or otherwise right-wing conservatives, here are a couple of good resources for progressives, moderates, or gay Christians:
Sojourners
http://www.sojo.net/
Soulforce
http://soulforce.org/
And, here’s an interesting quote:
“However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.'” – Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981.
Quote lifted from:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
Too bad there aren’t many Republican politicians like Barry around anymore!
Great quote from Goldwater.
And that was from ’81? Wow – it is even more powerful and true today.
For an even more powerful illustration of how dangerous is the mix of religious fundamentalism and democracy, see Sinclair Lewis’s wonderful novel “It Can’t Happen Here,” written before World War II, about how fascism could arise in the U.S., overcoming the balance of powers when evangelical ideologues mix their firebrand bigotry with nationalist xenophobia.
The parallel to the antidemocratic, narrow-minded bullying of the present administration is chilling. What Lewis couldn’t have imagined, though, was that this might happen at a time when the U.S. is the sole remaining military superpower with a military budget roughly equal to that of the rest of the world combined.
Personally, I think forget about living in interesting times – we’re living in a spectacularly scary time.
“Dumb Trailer Trash Redneck Sheep Fu*king Idiot”
“religious zealots”
“appear to have drank every drop of the special kool aid”
“big-mouthed bigots on the Christian right”
like I said – name-calling is the hallmark of a frustrated argument…
people don’t get mad when you lie about them, they get mad when you tell the truth about them…
All I suggested was that gay sex is a choice, and that it was a product of man’s mind, not any genetic drive… since there’s no scientific proof either way, it’s only the expression of an opinion, right? Or is that not allowed when discussing homosexuality in a political context?
What if a homosexual did say with conviction that his sexual preference was a choice? Would he be wrong?
Sorry, “choices,” I don’t really care one way or the other whether homosexuality is a choice or a genetic predisposition or a mandate from God Himself or some combination of these things. It’s not relevant to the discussion of tolerance. The reason I haven’t offered any proof one way or the other is that I don’t give a hoot.
The point is that people are people, and that they have all been granted some inalienable rights. To whit,….
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
No, Jefferson didn’t bother to add, “including homosexuals” or any such drivel. “All men.”
Sum Jung Gai – I wasn’t talking about your enumerated rights, or about Jefferson’s additions to the Constitution… but since you bring it up, I’m all for everyone having the same rights…
If you are being denied your constitutional rights as listed in the constitution, is your case being tried? What constitutional right have you been denied?
You say you don’t give a hoot about the “choice” question, but if you want the ‘protected’ status that others on this thread seek, you had better toe the “not a choice” line quickly. No one gets special treatment for their choices, only their unalterable conditions.
And, BTW, I am sorry about your friend. Stridency, invectives and violence should never be used to prove a point.
Oh ‘choices”….where do I begin…
“…People don’t get mad when you lie about them, they get mad when you tell the truth about them…” What? You got that backwards.
“…All I suggested was that gay sex is a choice…” You didn’t suggest. You stated factually that your postion is correct, yet you have no proof and you have no direct experience with the subject. You shown no educated background to that indicates you have any real knowlege on the subject other than what you have been brainwashed with in messages from religous zealots and ignorant bigotry. Let alone that you again are equating being gay with gay sex – you still can’t seem to differentiate between the person and the act.
“.. name-calling is the hallmark of a frustrated argument.” The only frustration here is with people like you who are ignorant and uneducated on the subject of which they expend so much time and energy trying to dismiss and discount. You wouldn’t know truth if it kicked you in the head. And, again, you aren’t being called names, but your actions and views are being appropriately described. In other words, ‘I only calls em as I sees em.’
“…You say you don’t give a hoot about the “choice” question…” Other than the lies your kind spread, that statement is basically true. Case in point: Religion is a choice and it is a protected status. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice (and it’s not), sexual orientation, one’s choice in partner or spouse, etc., can and should not be cause for anyone to be fired from their job or denied the rights and protections afforded by marriage.
If only you spent as much time and effort to be truly informed and knowledgable, rather than spouting off the talking points of bigoted and hateful groups like the American Family Association or Focus on the Family, you’d truly be a better and happier person. I encourage you to explore in detail the information provided on the websites linked above. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
once again…
“you have been brainwashed”
“religous zealots”
” ignorant bigotry”
“the lies your kind spread”
“…You got that backwards.” – No I got that right… people don’t care if someone they don’t know tells lies, only when they hit close to the mark and expose a bit of truth.
“…You didn’t suggest. You stated factually…” Okay, you got me there. I should have stated that it was only an opinion, but the stridency of the posts seemed to call for a strong statement of disagreement. My bad.”
“…you aren’t being called names” – I encourage you to read the posts above again.
“…Religion is a choice and it is a protected status.” – True enough, but that’s not what the end result of the sought-after legal protections would mean. On this and other threads, people have repeatedly compared homosexual rights with the rights of African-Americans. Would you follow this through to its conclusion? Should businesses have to hire a certain percentage of homosexuals? Should a certain percentage of government contracts go to all-homosexual firms? No one has to hire a certain amount of Catholics or Episcopals, so the protected status of religion is not in question here… it is the protected status of minorities, and the ‘choice’ question is all-important not to me, who has no political axe to grind, but to those who seek minority status under the law.
“…American Family Association or Focus on the Family” – I am not familiar with these groups, but my opinions may coincide with theirs – you seem to be a better judge of that than I, since you are familiar with them – perhaps they oppose your minority status? I assure you, though, that I do not hate you or anyone else. Hell, I don’t even know you!
“…Should businesses have to hire a certain percentage of homosexuals? Should a certain percentage of government contracts go to all-homosexual firms?” No one is asking for Affirmative Action or any sort of special rights or special status. Just the same legal protections everyone else has. It should be illegal nationwide to discrimate in hiring and firing solely based on sexual orientation.
“…What if a homosexual did say with conviction that his sexual preference was a choice? Would he be wrong?” Well, I suppose if you can find a homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) who confirms with conviction that they chose his or her sexual orientatation, I’d say you were right – once. I’m guessing though that you personally know few if any homosexuals. I, on the other, know hundreds, perhaps thousands counting all the gay business conventions I’ve been to and organizations I’ve belonged to, and I can state with 100% conviction that none has ever advised that their sexual orientation was chosen. Period. And, the same goes for every heterosexual I’ve ever known.
Your opinion is well noted…however, since you have such disregard for facts, refuse to educate yourself on the subject, I choose to discount your opinion as nothing but ignorance (see definition below).
Ignorance:
1) The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
2) The lack of knowledge or education
Re If you are being denied your constitutional rights as listed in the constitution, is your case being tried? What constitutional right have you been denied?
Huh? This isn’t about me. This is about prejudice against homosexuals. I’m not at all gay, but I also don’t think that gay couples somehow threaten my marriage or are trying to recruit my children. Because I’m not an idiot, you see. If I were, I might be all frantic and scared of the Homosexual Menace, Coming to Destroy You and Your Righteous Lifestyle with, uh… Bright-colored Clothing and Disco Music!!!!!
Re You say you don’t give a hoot about the “choice” question, but if you want the ‘protected’ status that others on this thread seek, you had better toe the “not a choice” line quickly. No one gets special treatment for their choices, only their unalterable conditions.
You’re very very confused, my friend. First, nobody’s seeking special treatment. We just want everybody to have the SAME treatment. It’s a little something called “equality.” Not special treatment. Equality. Second, equality DOES apply to your choices. If we did not, we wouldn’t have religious freedom, which I hope you understand isn’t genetic. And if we didn’t have religious freedom, then when those of us whose brains aren’t sullied by dogmatic double-think finally get into power, we could simply make religion illegal. I don’t think you’d like that.
“…since you have such disregard for facts, refuse to educate yourself on the subject, I choose to discount your opinion as nothing but ignorance (see definition below).”
Thanks for the def. (and the condescension), Rob! I’m not aware that my opinion disregarded any facts, but you of course are free to discounts others’ opinions as you see fit, as am I. And, for the record, I can state with 100% conviction that I have never conversed with any of my friends about the origins of their sexual preferences, either gay or straight, at all. It just never comes up…
Sum Yung Gai
Are you arguing with me? I’ve said nothing about being afraid of any homosexual menace (although I did like the line about disco), or of having a righteous lifestyle, or of denying equality to anyone. The reason I asked about what rights were violated is because you saw fit to quote the Declaration and seemed to be saying that your inalienable rights were being trampled. If that was not the case – disregard the question! Right now, all americans are protected by the same Constitution and body of law. Homosexuals may lawfully redress grievances with the US Govt. What I said was that for a homosexual to be able to say to an employer, “You cannot refuse to hire me because I am a homosexual”, he must first achieve some lawfully protected status as a minority. After all, I cannot say, “You cannot refuse to hire me because I like chocolate-chip cookies”. The law will not rule that sexual choices make a minority, so he MUST convince the law that he is a homosexual by birth, NOT by choice if he is to become a minority. Don’t set up straw man arguments and expect me to defend them.
choices, you’re just wrong. Religious preference has protected status. NOT special treatment, just a guarantee of EQUAL treatment. That’s all homosexuals want. And you can’t argue that they shouldn’t have it because it’s a choice (even if that were true, which I sincerely doubt–I certainly didn’t require any soul-searching to discover that I dug chicks–it was brutally obvious to me right about when their shirts started to change shape), or you would have to end protected status for religious preference. It’s a bogus argument. You can do better than that.
Don’t let your hatred for people you don’t understand fog your rational processes.
ok, last time there, Sum Yung…
RELIGIOUS freedoms are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Homosexuals have the same RELIGIOUS freedoms as everyone else.
Homosexuals are not seeking RELIGIOUS freedoms, as they already have them.
MINORITY status has different legal ramifications than RELIGIOUS status, including hiring and contract award quotas.
I did not argue that homosexuals should not have equal status under the law.
I did not espouse hatred for homosexuals or anyone else.
I never once brought up the subject of religion in opposition to homosexuality.
I do not care whether you ‘dig chicks’.
(I feel like Dr Seuss).
I’m not sure who’s arguments you’re responding to, but you really shouldn’t say that anyone who disagrees with you has a “hatred for people”. It probably isn’t true…
You say that you’ve “never conversed with any of (your) friends about the origins of their sexual preferences”, yet you make statements regarding homosexuality as if they are facts.
How can you possibly state with any conviction at all that homosexuality is merely a “choice”? On what can you possibly base this asumption? You have absolutely no evidence one way or the other and have not even bothered to speak on the subject with someone who is gay. That would seem to me to be the very definition of both ignorance, and prejudice, which is truly a shame, as you seem to be a very intelligent and thoughtful individual.
I would recommend that you actually discuss this subject with some of your gay friends. The information that you receive might be enlightening.
Choices, I’m still unsure why you are spending so much time and energy on this subject… you obviously are content to maintain and express your ignorant opinions without making any effort to actually educate yourself.
Your cookie analagy was pathetic and irrelevant, and yes ignorant…but then that is the pattern with your opinions and commentary, so it’s not unexpected.
The trouble here is that only gay people know for definite the answer to this choice question, but those on the other side of the argument will never accept our views as anything other than propaganda. Most gay people know from an extremely early age, way before puberty and sex comes into it, that there is something different about themselves. Although thinking back the signs for me where there as far back as I can remember, it was only at about 14 whilst all my friends were getting interested in girls that I started to realise what the difference was.
Now, maybe due to peer pressure, maybe due to an immature desire to fit in, or maybe in an effort to fight the truth, I had girlfriends. I even tried having sex with them (shock, horror, and out of marriage too), but things down below just never worked. I knew what it was, and when I finally went with a man I definitely knew, but I lied both to myself and everyone around me.
The only “choice” I made was to continue all the lying, or to accept who I really am. I’m sure there are several people who honestly think I should have made myself permanently miserable to suit their religious preferences, but to them I say that last time I read the Bible, it was the Devil who celebrated lies and deceit, not God.
alright, alright – chastised and corrected I stand… thanks, Dave H, for the clear and obviously heartfelt post. there are some things that I, as well, just know, and I completely understand this.
despite the unnecessary invectives, this has been a pretty good discussion (I’m trapped in bed with a broken foot for a couple days), and I was merely trying to point out what I saw as a possible conflict of interest regarding highly lucrative benefits in the US – there is a bit too much self-righteousness on my side in these types of discussions, and a bit too much offense taken on the other side. perhaps a change of tone on both sides will bring about the desired result more quickly?
Thanks for sharing your personal story Dave…it’s a reminder of how powerful the act of ‘coming out’ is. It’s obvious from Choices response that sharing personal information can do much more to overcome deep-rooted ignorance and bigotry than general facts and figures can.
“…perhaps a change of tone on both sides will bring about the desired result more quickly?” – That’s a nice thought Choices, but it’s highly unlikely. It’s most likely that political and religous conservatives will continue exherting their efforts, energy, and monies, spreading fear, intolerance, lies, and hate in their crusade to deny glbt peoples dignity, equality, and fairness. Gays are their best scapegoat to blame all of society’s ills on. As long as there’s someone else they can blame, there’s no need to look within to fix the problems. And, as long as gays are constantly under attack and denied equality, we won’t sit quietly on the sidelines letting our enemies determine our fate.
It used to be that social conservatives claimed that gays were promiscuous and couldn’t maintain stable relationships, so we were a threat to society and the family. But, now, as gays have proven the opposite, and are demanding equal civil marriage rights, we are even more a threat to society and the family. The bottom line social policy toward gay people embraced by conservatives is that gay people simply shouldn’t exist. And if they do exist, society has to pretend they don’t.
The only way we can beat the hard-line right-wingers is to stand up and speak out against bigotry, to combat ingorance with education, and to promote tolerance and understanding by living our lives to the fullest – openly, honestly, and equally.
And, in a related note:
Violence Against Gays Contines To Rise
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/042605violence.htm
By the way, I have a solution for the Gay Marriage issue. It’s really simple. Unfortunately, nobody’s asked me yet…
Anyway, the idea is that government should not recognize ANY marriage, straight or gay, whatsoever. Marriage is a religious, spiritual, or deeply personal bond, and shouldn’t be institutionalized, regulated, or even recognized. Instead, Government should only recognize Civil Union. This wouldn’t be a ceremony, but a form that you fill out. So every couple that gets married would fill out a Civil Union form. But any couple could fill one out, even without a marriage. To ease the transition, every existing marriage could be granted an automatic Civil Union certificate.
Wouldn’t that be simpler? Religions would continue to impose their own restrictions on marriage (one religion requires that you take a course on commitment, another requires that both parties be converted to the religion, another recognizes only heterosexual couples, another requires a dowry and elephant procession, etc.).