Should corporations be promoting homosexuality?

[This_person]

I think most thinking people would not have their opinion affected by this directly. However, it may affect my choice to work for the company, because it would effect benefits. If it affected enough people this way, they may have shoddier products and higher costs. That's what would effect people's decision to use the companies. That's what market corrections are to social issues.

I offer a hearty thank you to the red karma providing, insulting, but apparently perfect English major who corrected my use of "effect" and "affect". I bow to your obvious grammatical superiority.

 

[itsbob]

I just voted. No more ford cars for me!

Didn't you like the Probe??

 

[vraiblonde]

Didn't you like the Probe??

Okay, that was pretty good

 

[This_person]

My company provides benefits for "domestic partners." Some people interpret that as promoting homosexuality by making life a little bit easier. My only problem with the policy is that it does not apply equally to heterosexual couples who are not married.

As for the "promoting homosexuality" aspect, I don't care how many benefits you give them, it does not make anyone decide to become gay. Therefore it does not promote homosexuality.

For example, if tomorrow my company suddenly decided to double the pay of every homosexual, that would be seen as promoting homosexuality, but it actually wouldn't be. I could not become homosexual no matter what you paid me. Likewise, homosexuals cannot become straight just because you deny them benefits and rights.

My problem is the same. As you say, it doesn't provide for all non-marriage states equally. Before long, someone will sue and the benefits will have to go to the married woman - separated from her husband - who is shacking up with the 25 year old "artist" and his illegitimate two kids as well as her husband and their legitimate 3 kids. Sooner or later, the company will have so many people on their benefits that they will stop providing any meaningful benefits.

It doesn't promote homosexuality - the state of being. It promotes the acceptance vs. tolerance of all lifestyles outside the natural order; the states of being that give an unstable society. Acceptance to the point of costing the 95+% that do it "right". Say Tom and Dick get benefits, you have to say Bill and Jody have to get 'em, too, even though they've never been married (to each other [wink]). And Bill will have to give to Jody's kids from her previous three "partners". Otherwise, you're discriminating!

 

[Pete]

My company provides benefits for "domestic partners." Some people interpret that as promoting homosexuality by making life a little bit easier. My only problem with the policy is that it does not apply equally to heterosexual couples who are not married.

.

1. How can they do that legally?

2. How is it not showing preferential treatment to homosexual couples if they allow them benefits that an unmarried hetero couple do not get?

 

[Toxick]

I offer a hearty thank you to the red karma providing, insulting, but apparently perfect English major who corrected my use of "effect" and "affect". I bow to your obvious grammatical superiority.

I'm not totally sure - but I think I detect a touch of sarcasm in this post.








And by touch, I mean tsunami.

 

[chasco]

Sure why not?

Sure, why not? It's a great natural method of population control--something this poor old earth is in desperate need of. So, sure! Companies don't get into any trouble promoting heterosexuality, so why not?

 

[MMDad]

1. How can they do that legally?

2. How is it not showing preferential treatment to homosexual couples if they allow them benefits that an unmarried hetero couple do not get?

1. I have no idea. Doesn't sound legal to me, but I'm no lawyer.

2. They haven't been sued yet. I can't persue it because I am married. I suppose one day an unmarried hetero couple could demand the same rights and the policy will be adapted.

 

[This_person]

I'm not totally sure - but I think I detect a touch of sarcasm in this post.








And by touch, I mean tsunami.

Thanks, I try!

 

[Toxick]

Sure, why not? It's a great natural method of population control

You know what else is a natural method of population control?


Stupidity.



I say we take the warning labels off of everything, and the problem will take care of itself.

 

[Tonio]

I am skeptical of the terms "homosexual agenda" and "promoting homosexuality," because they suggest that the agenda is to convert all straight people.

When I read the title of this thread, I pictured corporations holding training sessions where the cast of "Queer Eye" would extol the benefits of being gay, or even attempt to proposition straight employees. That would be a strange PowerPoint presentation.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I am skeptical of the terms "homosexual agenda" and "promoting homosexuality," because they suggest that the agenda is to convert all straight people.

When I read the title of this thread, I pictured corporations holding training sessions where the cast of "Queer Eye" would extol the benefits of being gay, or even attempt to proposition straight employees. That would be a strange PowerPoint presentation.

That's what people like The American Family Association are scared about. They think that homosexuals are out to convert all straight people and that if we ignore the homosexuals completely, they will go away.

 

[Toxick]

That would be a strange PowerPoint presentation.

All you need is animated clipart featuring a hotdog oscillating toward a balloon-knot.



That should get the point across.

 

[Bustem' Down]

All you need is animated clipart featuring a hotdog oscillating toward a balloon-knot.



That should get the point across.

Or someone eating a fish taco.

 

[This_person]

All you need is animated clipart featuring a hotdog oscillating toward a balloon-knot.



That should get the point across.

That image will be in my head all day now!!!

 

[This_person]

That's what people like The American Family Association are scared about. They think that homosexuals are out to convert all straight people and that if we ignore the homosexuals completely, they will go away.

But, if companies are treating homosexual unions similarly to marriage, but not treating shacking up similarly to marriage, isn't that sort of like the company saying that there's an acceptance of that? Not that they're trying to convert people, because in my opinion you can't convert someone to or from homo or heterosexuality, but that they're trying to say they accept that one form of non-traditional union over other forms?

 

[Bustem' Down]

But, if companies are treating homosexual unions similarly to marriage, but not treating shacking up similarly to marriage, isn't that sort of like the company saying that there's an acceptance of that? Not that they're trying to convert people, because in my opinion you can't convert someone to or from homo or heterosexuality, but that they're trying to say they accept that one form of non-traditional union over other forms?

So what? Companies are taking care of thier employees and they are only going to change policy if someone prods them to. If they give benifits to homosexuals the same as married hetero's but not to people just "shacking up" then it's no one's but the people "shacking up"'s fault not to try and get the same benifits.

 

[Toxick]

So what? Companies are taking care of thier employees and they are only going to change policy if someone prods them to. If they give benifits to homosexuals the same as married hetero's but not to people just "shacking up" then it's no one's but the people "shacking up"'s fault not to try and get the same benifits.

Shanna, they bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into.
I say, let 'em crash.

 

[Tonio]

isn't that sort of like the company saying that there's an acceptance of that?

In my view, the individual is entitled to his or her own opinion about homosexuality. However, that opinion has no bearing on anyone but the individual.

 

[MMDad]

Shanna, they bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into.
I say, let 'em crash.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!