Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Businesses Politics

Microsoft Pushes For Gay Marriage In Washington State 678

Posted by Soulskill
from the taking-a-stand dept.
New submitter plsenjy writes "An article in the Atlantic outlines how Microsoft Corp. has submitted its support for a Washington State provision allowing gay couples to marry. Citing the company's inability to compete for top talent in the face of discrimination, Microsoft joins other firms such as Nike and Vulcan to effectively change moral policy from the top-down."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Pushes For Gay Marriage In Washington State

Comments Filter:
  • by GreatTech (2557540) on Friday January 20, 2012 @04:47PM (#38767928)
    I am glad to see Microsoft taking this position.

    Why?

    Because it is ridiculous when people try to control how others feel and who they love, especially when it really doesn't concern them. What we have now is people that are threatened by the idea of someone, oh my god, loving another person!

    I have had my fair share of gayness. While I personally like women, some guys are really hot. I'm not afraid to say that, and it's nice to kissy kiss other good looking mens while out. I have also had relationships with transwomen and ladyboys, and let me tell you this - when it comes to sex, nothing beats ladyboys! They look smokingly hot but since they have been males previously, they also know all the tricks. It's been the best sex I've ever had, and I'm happy to get another round in bed with a good ladyboy. And I'm not even kidding - try it. It's good to enjoy life before you die.


    I also have a friend who is gay, but due to his country actually having laws that ban men-to-men love, suffers from it. Awesome guy, and really friendly.

    Of course, US is a country of religious nut jobs, with all the "in god we believe" bullshit. It's accepted to show brutal violence on TV while natural things like sex is forbidden! And god forbid if there happens to be a nipple...
  • by Erect Horsecock (655858) on Friday January 20, 2012 @05:03PM (#38768140) Homepage Journal

    Marriot hotels I believe quietly supports banning it. They have some pretty deep ties to the LDS

  • by stanlyb (1839382) on Friday January 20, 2012 @05:07PM (#38768216)
    Why stop here? What about poly-marriage? I mean many men/women with many men/women? WHY NOT????
  • by KiloByte (825081) on Friday January 20, 2012 @06:01PM (#38768840)

    Homosexuality is fashionable currently, polygamy is not. Microsoft doesn't care about rights, it cares about PR.

    I see only two valid thresholds:
    * 1 man 1 woman (rationale: the only 1-on-1 configuration capable of having children)
    * any cohabiting group (rationale: the only non-discriminating one)

    On one hand: what's the reason two guys want to be recognized as a "marriage"? Not children, as they can't have them, and they're just as capable of raising a kid one of them had with a third party as mere friends as a couple -- it can never be "their" kid, at most of one of them. The uncomfortable truth is that they're after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.

    But, on the other hand, what about heterosexual marriages that don't want to have children? Should they be denied such benefits? And what about 80 years old newlyweds? Here the first variant falls apart.

    Thus, I'd say that there is no other way than to allow any group. Promoting homosexualism is picking them over polygamy (which actually has biological reasons), Yet we can't have it the mormon/muslim way (1 man, 4 women) -- gender equality forces us to allow 4 women 1 man as well. But then, why not 2 men 2 women?

    Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing. This would allow simplifying all child/adoption/marriage/etc rules: anyone can join, if you were underage when joining you are not allowed to ever have relations with someone who was a part of the group (no matter if you were born into or adopted); only adults can ever leave (except as a court order in cases of abuse or neglect). No restrictions on gender, number or anything whatsoever.

  • by wygit (696674) on Friday January 20, 2012 @06:03PM (#38768876)

    Chick-fil-A has thrown a lot of support to anti-gay and "defense of marriage" groups.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#Religious_and_political_views [wikipedia.org]

  • by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Friday January 20, 2012 @06:03PM (#38768894) Homepage Journal
    I'm sure I will open a philosophical can of whoop-ass on myself, but here goes... How did we, humans, end up dominating the earth over other creatures? Some argue our thumbs, our ability to reason, communication, and a whole mess of other things that other animals have. Simple fact of the matter is, a human being will cut up your mother, eat her intestines, while you sit, tied up, being forced to watch, just because THEY CAN. Even your raged-filled chimpanzee doesn't get that personal. And it isn't just us over the animal kingdom, it's humans over humans. When two sides of a war have a technical equality, the one willing to perform the most egregious atrocities will be the one to prevail.
  • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Friday January 20, 2012 @06:15PM (#38769026)

    I am glad to see Microsoft taking this position

    Gates has also done the same thing in Saudi Arabia.

    Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering.

  • by smelch (1988698) on Friday January 20, 2012 @06:38PM (#38769322)
    Who is being protected by allowing two people to get a better tax return for being married?
  • by KiloByte (825081) on Friday January 20, 2012 @06:50PM (#38769490)

    It's not merely taxes -- other parts of the package include stuff like inheritance, granting citizenship, etc.

    You didn't answer why we should give these rights to gays but not to other variants of marriage (like polygamy). Unless you meant this by "I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all" -- in that case, the civil union contract (whatever it is named) would have no such restrictions.

    And as for religious right: what about forcing them to follow their own rules, including forced marriage with the victim and 50 shekels (=$13) for a rape? That's what Christianity tells us to do (the New Testament stresses five times that all old rules are still in full force). I guess we'd see a huge rush of apostates (here, mostly women) if they read the scripture.

  • by reve_etrange (2377702) on Friday January 20, 2012 @09:18PM (#38771030)

    And since when is an adopted child not the parents' kid?

    Indeed. After an adoption is finalized, there is no legal difference between biological and adopted children, except that in some cases parents of an adopted child may be eligible for some specific forms of welfare.

    Fortunately, California forbids social workers from discriminating between potential adoptive parents on the basis of sexual orientation. What I just don't understand is why people view the ability to marry as more important than the ability to adopt. Californians never had an initiative ballot to amend the constitution against gay adoption.

  • by KiloByte (825081) on Saturday January 21, 2012 @06:43AM (#38773186)

    I am a gay man who wants to get married and have children.

    A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.

    1. Yes, I am after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. Why do you say a solo person deserves such benefits more than me?

    Ok, I probably misphrased it: s/deserve/need/.

    A kid that has a parent and a step-parent is likely to require government handouts less than a kid who has but a solo parent. This is not a hard rule, of course.

    When it comes to deserving, you are exactly equal -- raising a kid is raising a kid.

    Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing.

    You're onto the answer. However, by doing that, you're still making the mistake that the government shouldn't make - making a decision of who can or can't be involved.

    I kind of fail to understand what you disagree with -- I claim that the only non-discriminating way is to allow anyone to bond with anyone else, no matter the gender, race or number of people in such a bond. You claim the government shouldn't get to choose, leaving that decision to the individuals who want to enter the union.

    Unless I get something wrong, these are equivalent.

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...