PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - View Single Post

retmil46 · #**242** 08-08-2010, 10:07 PM

Personally, it's none of my business who marries who, whether they call it a marriage or a civil union, who gets what tax breaks, what they do in the bedroom, etc, etc. And the reverse should also apply.

Problem is, there are over-zealous noisemakers on BOTH sides of this issue that are preventing any kind of logical and fair solution.

Case in point to illustrate Newton's law of "equal and opposite reactions" -

I know a person that used to work for a major bank. Several years ago, the bank decided that to appear more "homo-friendly" as a business and forstall any future troubles over possible accusation of discrimination, they were going to institute what could be termed an "homosexual affirmative action" policy - all other things being equal, preference would be given in all hiring and promotion decisions to those that told the company they were homosexual, over those that had listed no preference, said they were heterosexual, or told the bank it was none of their bloody business.

The above person said the bank called them all into meetings by department to explain the new hiring and promotion policy. Their department head told them that not only would the bank give preference to homosexuals in hiring and promotion - essentially preferential treatment based solely on sexual orientation - but also advised the heterosexual employees that from then on, if they wanted to have a decent chance of getting a raise or promotion, they should change their personal info listed with the bank and identify themselves as homosexual even though they weren't. Anyone who had a hard spot with the new policy for whatever reason was advised to seek employment elsewhere.

The person I mentioned above had no stomach for this, and put in for early retirement.

IMHO, that's the polar opposite of, and equally as flawed as, "don't ask don't tell". In the above instance, homosexuals were given preferential treatment. In the latter, heterosexuals are given preferential treatment. And both in my view are equally wrong - what a person does in the bedroom and who they live with shouldn't have any bearing on who gets hired or fired.

So, now you have the instance where the zealots on one side of the argument persuades a major company to give preferential treatment based on sexual orientation. End result is blowback from the opposite extreme - now the zealots on the other side will scream at every opportunity that all the talk about "equal rights" is just a smokescreen for wanting preferential treatment codified into law.

And the rest of us are left sitting in the crossfire.