Prop 8 over turned - Page 17 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

AdvisorGuy · #**241** 08-08-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

And third, there is no indication that people would stop having children were the rules of marriage changed.

Exactly.. Maybe "6,000 years ago", procreation was deemed necessary for population growth, considering reaching 25 years of age was practically a miracle. Gay marriage isn't going to suddenly increase the number of gays on the planet. The numbers will be the same, only some will be "married." Heterosexuals seem to be doing a bang up job at "procreation" and increasing the population. I doubt that will change either..

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.

kerry · #**243** 08-08-2010, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

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.
.

Quite frankly, I don't believe a word of that story. Some evidence supporting it might convince me to change my opinion. The simple fact that they were asking their employees to reveal their sexual orientation is a red flag in and of itself.
I think the lawyers would have gotten rich on that policy.

MTUpower · #**244** 08-08-2010, 10:34 PM

Society is better off when offspring have a family- and that means a mother and a father who stick together and raise the offspring to become productive, educated, responsible adults. Since gays cannot have offspring they should not be allowed to have the advantages that those who "sacrifice" and do marry and stick together and have offspring is the thinking and view for most.
This is changed by allowing adoption by gays who otherwise fit the criteria for responsible adults wanting offspring.
As an adopted child myself I'm glad I was not raised by a gay couple, but I'd have rather been raised by a gay couple than live in foster homes. I could care less if a person is gay, straight or bi as an adult. I rather like gays in that they seem to have a personality trait that appeals to me, and I've been mistaken by straight folks as gay many times. I think if I was raised by a gay couple the mannerisms and habits that most can detect with "gaydar" would have been passed/taught to me- and in the current world we live in it would be a disadvantage. Again, I have no desire to have be anything but straight, but do not care what anyone does sexually with willing partners.
I'm not sure where this leads me to, but I think "marriage" should be for heterosexual couples. Let gays have civil unions with all the same benefits as marriage but do not call it marriage. Married couples without kids should not have the benefits as those married with offspring IMHO.

davidmash · #**245** 08-08-2010, 11:51 PM

I believe children should have a loving family. Two moms, two dads, four grand parents... what ever the case may be. You can come up with examples of children who are messed up who came from hetero, gay and single parent homes. I would guess that the quality of the parents is more of a factor in the quality of the child rather than the sexual preference of the parent.

As for the traits of the parents rubbing off on the children. I think that assumes that sexuality is a learned trait rather than a genetic trait. I am betting if you look at the numbers, you would have more gay people who have straight parents than gay people from gay parents.

While people might be more comfortable with gays having a separate category of union, I do not think the COTUS would agree. The SCOTUS has already ruled that separate but equal is not a legal practice. Marriage is a civil agreement. I would rather see marriage stay in the public domain and religion can can theirs "Holy Matrimony".

retmil46 · #**246** 08-08-2010, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Quite frankly, I don't believe a word of that story. Some evidence supporting it might convince me to change my opinion. The simple fact that they were asking their employees to reveal their sexual orientation is a red flag in and of itself.
I think the lawyers would have gotten rich on that policy.

Your choice. The person that related that "story" to me is a close personal friend, and over the years I've never had reason to doubt his word.

My friend didn't leave solely due to this announced policy - in his own words, this was the last straw after a string of questionable business and personnel decisions by the same firm - that this last announced change confirmed in his mind he was working for "a bunch of half-baked morons that sooner or later would drive the company into bankruptcy".

I will give you one clue - his bankruptcy prediction proved correct.

They weren't asking them to reveal their sexual orientation per se - only stating that those who were self-proclaimed homosexuals would be given preference, and strongly "suggesting" that if anyone else wanted to better their chances of being promoted, letting the company know of their homosexual orientation on their own recognizance would be one way to do so.

As I stated, my friend left the firm immediately thereafter - it could have been that afterwards there were enough howls of protest, and as you said enough potential for several lawyer's paydays and threatened legal action, that wiser heads prevailed and the proposed promotion policy arrived stillborn.

#**247** 08-09-2010, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Quite frankly, I don't believe a word of that story. Some evidence supporting it might convince me to change my opinion. The simple fact that they were asking their employees to reveal their sexual orientation is a red flag in and of itself.
I think the lawyers would have gotten rich on that policy.

Yeah, that's complete BS. Any business adapting that policy would be sued out of existence, not to mention that it would be a violation of labor laws to even ask those questions.

retmil46 · #**248** 08-09-2010, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Yeah, that's complete BS. Any business adapting that policy would be sued out of existence, not to mention that it would be a violation of labor laws to even ask those questions.

Well, I guess that proves you're not all-knowing and all-seeing after all.

Go back and re-read the post. They didn't require anyone to reveal what their orientation was - SELF-ADMITTED homosexuals would be given preference for promotion, and it was "suggested" for anyone else wanting to get a leg up on their own chances for promotion, coming out and volunteering the info that you were homosexual would be one way to do it.

More than likely this was some idiot VP's knee-jerk overreaction to the possibility that someone who was openly homosexual would one day try to sue them for discrimination in hiring and/or promotion, ie, claiming they were denied promotion solely on sexual orientation - and the dumba$$ kneejerked all the way to the opposite extreme into an equally untenable position.

And as I said before - my friend took early retirement immediately after this policy was proposed. And it may very well be as you hinted - amidst the howls of protest and threatened legal action after it was proposed, someone realized what a cluster they had on their hands, and said policy was DOA, never became anything more than "proposed", and was quickly swept under the rug.

But the whole point of relating this "story" is to show, just like politics in DC, there are overzealous idiots on both sides of this issue as well, whose caterwauling only serves to keep anything worthwhile from being accomplished.

#**249** 08-09-2010, 01:57 AM

Assuming your friend has his story straight (which seems very unlikely), this employer was badly in need of legal advice. The premise that any american company would even consider an employment policy based on stated sexual preference is very hard to believe (they certainly wouldn't have used a term like "SELF-ADMITTED homosexuals" in the last 30 years).

retmil46 · #**250** 08-09-2010, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Assuming your friend has his story straight (which seems very unlikely), this employer was badly in need of legal advice. The premise that any american company would even consider an employment policy based on stated sexual preference is very hard to believe (they certainly wouldn't have used a term like "SELF-ADMITTED homosexuals" in the last 30 years).

Well, he did describe upper management as I quoted before, as "a bunch of half-baked morons that sooner or later will drive the company into bankruptcy". He was at least spot on in the bankruptcy prediction.

And as he also noted, this was the last in a rather lengthy line of questionable business and personnel decisions at that firm that bordered on sheer stupidity. He himself agreed with your call, that the promotion policy as they proposed it would be a legal firestorm if they even dreamed of enacting it - he decided to give up his VP position and take early retirement, and get out of there before the crap hit the fan.

From my friend's description, this firm would be a prime example of one of the corollarys to Murphy's Law - "Everyone is promoted to their own level of incompetence". Even at my last job, working in a Freightliner truck plant, I lost count of how many nonsensical projects were undertaken that everyone involved knew was an absolute crock, because some manager or VP had this bright idea for a pet project they thought was going to earn them major brownie points with the big boys back in Portland or over in Stuttgart, and no one was willing to risk losing their job by telling the emperor he had no clothes.

aklim · #**251** 08-09-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Yeah, that's complete BS. Any business adapting that policy would be sued out of existence, not to mention that it would be a violation of labor laws to even ask those questions.

In theory, yes. However, if you look at AA and several other policies of favoring minorities, maybe not.

MTUpower · #**252** 08-09-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I believe children should have a loving family. Two moms, two dads, four grand parents... what ever the case may be. You can come up with examples of children who are messed up who came from hetero, gay and single parent homes. I would guess that the quality of the parents is more of a factor in the quality of the child rather than the sexual preference of the parent.

As for the traits of the parents rubbing off on the children. I think that assumes that sexuality is a learned trait rather than a genetic trait. I am betting if you look at the numbers, you would have more gay people who have straight parents than gay people from gay parents.

While people might be more comfortable with gays having a separate category of union, I do not think the COTUS would agree. The SCOTUS has already ruled that separate but equal is not a legal practice. Marriage is a civil agreement. I would rather see marriage stay in the public domain and religion can can theirs "Holy Matrimony".

Not sure I agree with your separate but equal is not legal. Plenty of minorities are "more equal" with AA- and that passes the COTUS test. Of course in one sense of course it is legal, but obviously not all senses. AA puts all things equal except if you are black you get more concrete chances of winning a contract or getting funds to start a business /etc because it's current thinking says that society does not give blacks (and some other minorities) a "real" chance of _______ (fill in the blank to suit whatever it is you wish they are not getting now). Again obviously current thinking changes- and so should AA IMHO-m should be stopped -but that's another thread.
I don't agree completely with the sexuality is learned either- I think you are either gay/straight/bi from birth. You may experiment, but that's not what will determine what you become later.

davidmash · #**253** 08-09-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

Not sure I agree with your separate but equal is not legal. Plenty of minorities are "more equal" with AA- and that passes the COTUS test. Of course in one sense of course it is legal, but obviously not all senses. AA puts all things equal except if you are black you get more concrete chances of winning a contract or getting funds to start a business /etc because it's current thinking says that society does not give blacks (and some other minorities) a "real" chance of _______ (fill in the blank to suit whatever it is you wish they are not getting now). Again obviously current thinking changes- and so should AA IMHO-m should be stopped -but that's another thread.
I don't agree completely with the sexuality is learned either- I think you are either gay/straight/bi from birth. You may experiment, but that's not what will determine what you become later.

I remember reading an article explaining that AA does not fall into the separate /equal category but I cannot for the life of me remember the explanation.

If you re-read what I wrote, I agree with you on the idea that gay is genetic not learned. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were implying in your original post. I do not believe that the sexual orientation of the parent will have any affect on the sexual orientation of the child. As long as the child has loving guardians, sexual orientation, numbers or what ever will have little effect on the child's growth and maturity.

JollyRoger · #**254** 08-09-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

If it makes me happy to pay a fat ugly person with a stiff penis to run around naked in front of your house you should allow it then with this logic.

Could you be any sillier ?

JollyRoger · #**255** 08-09-2010, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

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.

That entire story sounds utterly false.