Should corporations be promoting homosexuality?

[This_person]

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.

How many benefits are you willing to give up to "support" other ways of life? Each person covered costs the company money. They split that cost among the employees in terms of how much benefit each employee will receive, or how much each employee must pay to keep the same benefit. They don't ever limit their profit, they just cut the benefit. So, how much more money are you willing to pay so that someone's mistress's illegitimate children can be covered under your plan? Would you pay an extra $50/check? $100? To support something in which neither you, nor society in general, agrees with. It stops being an individual concept when it costs others. Heck, if weren't for DUI, medical costs, lost productivity, etc., I'd support drug use for individuals. If it weren't for death/disability I'd say we shouldn't require people get driver's licences - it's an individual's choice. Wait, no, it's not. We live in a society, and we try and keep it stable - not fair, stable. Life's not fair to one and all. But, the society tries to keep it closest to fair for most.

 

[Tonio]

someone's mistress's illegitimate children...

To support something in which neither you, nor society in general, agrees with. It stops being an individual concept when it costs others.

First, I don't think homosexuality and adultery are comparable. Cost to others aside, the first harms no one while the second harms the wronged spouse.

Second, our economy is so interconnected that some of our money inevitably goes to things that we might personally oppose. I'm thinking of the federal budget, or the practices of companies in 401(k) plans or mutual funds. I can imagine vegetarians being upset that part of their tax money goes to support farmers who raise cattle or pigs.

My point is that we have control over only our own personal decisions and beliefs. We have no control over other people's private behavior. When it comes to homosexuality, gay people are going to be gay whether or not they receive spousal benefits from their employers - cutting such benefits wouldn't accomplish anything.

 

[This_person]

First, I don't think homosexuality and adultery are comparable. Cost to others aside, the first harms no one while the second harms the wronged spouse.

Second, our economy is so interconnected that some of our money inevitably goes to things that we might personally oppose. I'm thinking of the federal budget, or the practices of companies in 401(k) plans or mutual funds. I can imagine vegetarians being upset that part of their tax money goes to support farmers who raise cattle or pigs.

My point is that we have control over only our own personal decisions and beliefs. We have no control over other people's private behavior. When it comes to homosexuality, gay people are going to be gay whether or not they receive spousal benefits from their employers - cutting such benefits wouldn't accomplish anything.

My concept was no spouse involved - just a "live-in" with kids from previous "partners", where there was no marriage. Mistress was the wrong word to use there, but whore sounded a little too preachy. I certainly can't argue the second part there, that money gets spent on things with which we don't agree. But, when I (think I) can control parts, because they're controllable by speaking my mind to my company officials, I think I should. I think everyone should. The Kinsey report said something like 10% of people are gay. Then, they admitted they lied on the high side (way, way, way on the high side) because they wanted the number to be higher than it was. So, if something much less than 10% exist, and the bulk of the populace doesn't agree with the activity, why "support" it in that you're paying for it?

I keep reading people misunderstanding the word "support" as if it meant "trying to convert". I do not, in any way, want to stop people from being homosexual. I think that you can't control that any more than left and right handed or bald and hairy. I don't think you can "convert" anyone to or from homosexuality. But, you can choose to accept it as a behavior equal to natural design, or tolerate it as the abnormality it is. Just like not allowing a blind person to drive. You're not trying to convert them to not be blind, you're just not accepting them as an equal in all ways. Because, they're not. They're blind. Most people don't accept a homosexual couple as a social equal to a married couple. They accept, without prejudice, the professional equality and human equality, but only tolerate the social status of homosexuality. We tolerate people living together in both homosexuality and heterosexuality the same - by not giving it an equal social status. But, there are some (very vocal) "progressives" who think it should be given an equal social status. It's not, and shouldn't be treated that way.
JMO

 

[Tonio]

But, there are some (very vocal) "progressives" who think it should be given an equal social status. It's not, and shouldn't.

Why? I believe that social norms should be questioned and deconstructed. Not rejected blindly, but not accepted blindly either. A social norm should serve a legitimate purpose. Otherwise, why have the norm in the first place?

I can't think of a valid reason why homosexuality should be taboo. Such a taboo might make sense if were necessary for society's survival to mandate that everyone attempt to procreate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social status" regarding gay couples. I can't think of a meaning that wouldn' tequate to professional and human inequality.

 

[This_person]

Why? I believe that social norms should be questioned and deconstructed. Not rejected blindly, but not accepted blindly either. A social norm should serve a legitimate purpose. Otherwise, why have the norm in the first place?

I can't think of a valid reason why homosexuality should be taboo. Such a taboo might make sense if were necessary for society's survival to mandate that everyone attempt to procreate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social status" regarding gay couples. I can't think of a meaning that wouldn' tequate to professional and human inequality.

Questioning the norm is good, to a point. I agree. But, it became the norm for a reason, and it wasn't just religion. I believe marriage does serve a legitimate purpose. I bet your wife does, too. Your question ("otherwise, why have the norm in the first place?") sort of implies you already understand that. Since it IS the norm, it must have come from a long standing legitimate gain to society.

"Social status" regarding homosexual couples means things like calling that partnership the same name as a normal couple's union. Marriage has a dictionary definition, and it doesn't include homosexuals. Or, providing benefits equal to a spouse, because a same-sex partner is not a spouse. Professionally, that means not saying a homosexual can't be promoted or worked with because of their orientation. And, meaning it. As a human, that means you don't allow discriminatory crimes of other types for someone's orientation. I'm not suggesting anything like allowing bigots and fools to attack a homosexual person for being themselves. I don't think that the law should stop someone from performing their sexual acts in the privacy of their own homes any more than I want my sexual acts regulated. That would be a human status discrimination. But, socially, I don't think acceptance should be regulated. This whole thread is a discussion, which is (IMO) how things like this should work. Should companies provide benefits (the point of the thread)? That, in my opinion, is up to the company - shouldn't be forced. And, I wouldn't work there (actually, I do and I'm fighting it within the system, but it's a new change). If enough people choose to not work there, the company will fail. Social, market correction.

 

[Toxick]

I can't think of a valid reason why homosexuality should be taboo.

Dookie under the foreskin.


Nuff said.

 

[Tonio]

Dookie under the foreskin.

Isn't "dookie" a slang term for marijuana? It's also the title of a Green Day album.

 

[Toxick]

Isn't "dookie" a slang term for marijuana? It's also the title of a Green Day album.

I think you're thinking of "doobie".



There's only one meaning of dookie that I'm aware of.





And it is the title of a Green Day album.

 

[This_person]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage same-sex marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Throughout history, and even today in some cultures, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic or other reasons (anyone heard of a Shotgun Wedding?)



Main Entry: common-law marriage
Function: noun
1 : a marriage recognized in some jurisdictions and based on the parties' agreement to consider themselves married and sometimes also on their cohabitation
2 : the cohabitation of a couple even when it does not constitute a legal marriage

There really is no reason, besides religious ones, that a gay couple living in a common law setting shouldnt be recognized as such.
If states recognize common law marriage (and some states do recognize it) how is it handled when that couple moves?



Exactly, if the business has a policy that recognizes (by offering benefits) gay couples, its up to the employees of that company to either continue employment or not.
But i also feel, if they offer Gay couples benefits, based on a common law relationship (see above) then they should offer straight couples the same benefits, if not they would be opening themselves up for a discrimination suit.

American Heritage Dictionary
mar·riage (mār'ĭj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).


There are different sources, but we all understand what marriage is. I've heard of a shotgun wedding, but it's generally considered a shotgun wedding is one where the bride is pregnant, and the bride's father wants to make sure the bride's baby has a daddy.

You asked what happens if one state recognizes homosexual unions as equals to marriage. Article 4, Section 2, first line of the Constitution says "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." That means (to me) that all the states would have to equally recognize the union. That's why it's a federal issue (Chris Matthews notwithstanding). And that's why, if homosexual couples are offered equal social status, normal non-married couples would have to be offered the same status (as you said above), and why (IMO) it would be at a great cost to society as a whole, a de-stabilizing factor. Why I'm against it. For my karma providers who think I'm some hater, I'm not. I just agree with a stable society.

 

[This_person]

There really is no reason, besides religious ones, that a gay couple living in a common law setting shouldnt be recognized as such.
If states recognize common law marriage (and some states do recognize it) how is it handled when that couple moves?

There is also no reason why a "gay" couple needs to be "married". Every opportunity is there for medical status (ie, death bed decisions, etc.), inheritances, wills, and any other "advantage" you can think of for married people to be gotten in other ways for "gay" people. Calling it "marriage" does but one thing - puts the couple on an equal acceptance.

 

[Tonio]

But, it became the norm for a reason, and it wasn't just religion. I believe marriage does serve a legitimate purpose. I bet your wife does, too. Your question ("otherwise, why have the norm in the first place?") sort of implies you already understand that. Since it IS the norm, it must have come from a long standing legitimate gain to society.

You're right that the institution of marriage does offer benefits to society. However, that does not mean that people have an obligation to society to be straight or to get married. Single people, regardless of sexual orientation, can contribute to society in other ways.

"Social status" regarding homosexual couples means things like calling that partnership the same name as a normal couple's union.

From the legal standpoint, I don't particularly care whether gay couples are "married" or have "civil unions." If they want the same legal rights and legal responsibilities of married couples (and the responsibilities part should be emphasized), I think the name is no big deal.

Should companies provide benefits (the point of the thread)? That, in my opinion, is up to the company - shouldn't be forced.

Marriage has certain psychological benefits, and I suspect these also hold true for gay couples. I can imagine an employer concluding that as well. From a free-market standpoint, the benefits might lead to the company recruiting a few gay employees with talent and drive who would help the bottom line, employees who might otherwise work elsewhere.

And, I wouldn't work there

Cost issues aside, I don't seem to get worked up over private behavior that doesn't harm others. I cannot identify with your motivation.

 

[forestal]

Don't confuse tolerance with promotion.

They are different things you homophobe.

 

[Dork]

Don't confuse tolerance with promotion.

They are different things you homophobe.

What a stupid made up word! To have a phobia, would mean that one is afraid of something. I personally am not afraid of homos so I know I am not a homophobe. I simply don't think the lifestyle is normal or healthy and am entitled to my opinion, whether you like it or not. Now, who is the intolorant one? Respect my opinion! Quit trying to attach stupid words like homophobe to people who don't think it's normal.

Did I ever tell you about this time I went camping with a buddy and we had a few too many drinks. He asked me a question that i thought was very odd. He asked me that if I woke up in the morning and found a condom hanging out of my a**, would I tell anyone. I said, heck no! He said, good! Have another drink or two and try to get some sleep. I guess I was a little afraid of that homo that night. Oh, OK. You got me. I was a homophobe that night. I stayed awake all night!

 

[This_person]

You're right that the institution of marriage does offer benefits to society. However, that does not mean that people have an obligation to society to be straight or to get married. Single people, regardless of sexual orientation, can contribute to society in other ways.

I don't think people need to be straight or to be married. I'm just saying that the social climate should "promote" those institutions that benefit the society, like marriage. Certainly, everyone contributes in one way or another, but the highest benefit seems to be from the stable, monogamous marriage.

From the legal standpoint, I don't particularly care whether gay couples are "married" or have "civil unions." If they want the same legal rights and legal responsibilities of married couples (and the responsibilities part should be emphasized), I think the name is no big deal.

For me, personally, the name is a big deal. The legal rights are obtainable in other ways, so why do we need to call something something it's not? Maybe, and I'd personally be okay with this, the "civil union" name is best - acknowledges that there IS a benefit beyond "shacking up", but doesn't confuse it with something it's not.

Marriage has certain psychological benefits, and I suspect these also hold true for gay couples. I can imagine an employer concluding that as well. From a free-market standpoint, the benefits might lead to the company recruiting a few gay employees with talent and drive who would help the bottom line, employees who might otherwise work elsewhere.

For me this is a statistics issue. A much larger population is against it than for it, so more than likely you'd get better by working with the larger group. Not 100%, certainly.

Cost issues aside, I don't seem to get worked up over private behavior that doesn't harm others. I cannot identify with your motivation.

I, also, could care less about the behavior itself. Please don't judge my actions, and I won't judge anyone else's. My whole opinion is based on the statistical issues (societal benefits, costs to the average worker in professional benefits, etc), not judging the behavior. That's where my motivation is.

Figured this was easier.

 

[Tonio]

I'm just saying that the social climate should "promote" those institutions that benefit the society, like marriage.

Straight marriage's benefits to society would still exist whether or not gay marriage was legal. From an institutional and personal standpoint, straight marriage would not be harmed by legal gay marriage. Nor would gay marriage discourage straights from getting married or staying married. It's not like thousands of straight married people are suddenly going to leave their spouses and run off with gay lovers or something.

Also, I have some skepticism of the "social climate" aspect. For centuries, that climate was used to limit women socially, under the questionable claim that it was "best for society." Society demanded that women get married and have children. Even as late as the 1950s, many people thought that women who didn't want marriage and children were strange or crazy.

For me, personally, the name is a big deal.

Why? I don't see how calling gay unions "marriages" affects you personally or me personally, other than your argument about the financial aspect. If gays could get married, I wouldn't love my wife any less, or feel less committed to my marriage with her.

 

[This_person]

Straight marriage's benefits to society would still exist whether or not gay marriage was legal. From an institutional and personal standpoint, straight marriage would not be harmed by legal gay marriage. Nor would gay marriage discourage straights from getting married or staying married. It's not like thousands of straight married people are suddenly going to leave their spouses and run off with gay lovers or something.

Also, I have some skepticism of the "social climate" aspect. For centuries, that climate was used to limit women socially, under the questionable claim that it was "best for society." Society demanded that women get married and have children. Even as late as the 1950s, many people thought that women who didn't want marriage and children were strange or crazy.



Why? I don't see how calling gay unions "marriages" affects you personally or me personally, other than your argument about the financial aspect. If gays could get married, I wouldn't love my wife any less, or feel less committed to my marriage with her.

Sounds like we actually agree more than not!

The marriage benefits still would exist, I agree. My issue isn't that there would be a loss from the marriage, but that we'd be treating something that provides less (I won't say it provides none, just less) benefit to society equally. We should provide the most positive feedback to that which provides the most benefit to all, as a group. That's why I say I'd be okay with the idea of civil union - a step below marriage, above "shacking up". I think that's where it fits. Again, I'm not thinking anyone is going to "turn" gay because of different treatment, I'm talking about proper payback for proper benefit to society.

While I'm not going to be stupid (and wrong) enough to say that a woman's place is in the home, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that system worked better for society - not for each person, but for society. When Ward and June Cleaver were the norm houses, cars, and life in general was affordable on one income for a family, and crime was much lower because people were generally better people (as a group). I think people were better because they were raised better, because they had someone in the home taking care of them without the distraction of a second career. Now, you can't buy a home and have a decent car without at least two incomes, kids act out significantly worse in school and on the streets (stores, etc.), and in general there is a decay of moral values and common courtesy. While I do think any and all women can and should be in the work force at any and every level they choose, there were social advantages to June being home. And, we should do what we can to encourage a return to that setup (regardless of whether it's Ward or June home) for our social good. We swung the pendulum too far on that one, I think. One of the choices women (and men) should be encouraged to make, if they want to, is stay home and be a positive family influence. This should be at least as acceptable a choice as entering the work field, and I don't think it is right now for anyone.

I agree, I wouldn't love my wife less or she me. "Marriage" would not be directly influenced in my home. My thought is that "marriage" would be slowly eroded away, not seen as important, not seen as an advantage, because marriage would include things of less value (not no value, less value), so the total benefit of marriage would be less to society. If you included all non-traditional unions (multiple partners, "open" relationships, bestiality, etc), where would the benefit lie? It would be like not telling honor students they're honor students, and then why try harder. Or, not scoring a ball game because the losers might feel bad, so why try harder. Wait, we do those things, and those are the results. If you tell married people they're on par with bigamists, why would they try harder to do the "right" thing?

 

[Tonio]

The marriage benefits still would exist, I agree. My issue isn't that there would be a loss from the marriage, but that we'd be treating something that provides less (I won't say it provides none, just less) benefit to society equally.

You may be right about the benefit being less. But I don't see that lesser benefit as a reason to ban gay marriage. Private behavior that does not hurt others doesn't have to have a societal benefit in order to be legal or socially permissible.

While I do think any and all women can and should be in the work force at any and every level they choose, there were social advantages to June being home. And, we should do what we can to encourage a return to that setup (regardless of whether it's Ward or June home) for our social good. We swung the pendulum too far on that one, I think.

I agree with you about the social advantages, although I think it's a mistake to romanticize the old social order. For one thing, we shouldn't assume that the fictional Cleavers really represented how most American families lived back then. Second, every era has its social turmoil - the 1950s were also a time of brutal racism and Cold War fears. The movie "Pleasantville" is a good fictional rebuttal to the romantic view of that decade.

I see a lot of merit to having more parental time at home. It could be June staying home, it could be Ward staying home with June working, or it could be both parents working part-time. The old social order didn't allow for that individual choice - it locked both men and women into certain roles against their will.

My thought is that "marriage" would be slowly eroded away, not seen as important, not seen as an advantage, because marriage would include things of less value (not no value, less value), so the total benefit of marriage would be less to society. If you included all non-traditional unions (multiple partners, "open" relationships, bestiality, etc), where would the benefit lie? It would be like not telling honor students they're honor students, and then why try harder. Or, not scoring a ball game because the losers might feel bad, so why try harder. Wait, we do those things, and those are the results. If you tell married people they're on par with bigamists, why would they try harder to do the "right" thing?

First, bestiality is not a valid comparison, because that's an act of rape that causes harm to innocent creatures. Second, one could argue that consensual polygamy is not inherently immoral. But there are valid reasons to keep it illegal - in practice it is frequently not consensual on the women's part, involving exploitation and statutory rape. I'm not sure why. Your other examples aren't valid either, in my view, because they don't constitute committed relationships. True commitment involves monogamy, as well as a willingness to accept the legal responsibilities of marriage or civil union. If a couple doesn't intend to be committed and monogamous, why should government make their union legal?

 

[This_person]

You may be right about the benefit being less. But I don't see that lesser benefit as a reason to ban gay marriage. Private behavior that does not hurt others doesn't have to have a societal benefit in order to be legal or socially permissible.

And that's why I think you've convinced me (or, this discussion has, anyway) that a "civil union" would be okay. It IS better than people shacking up, but I still think it's less of a benfit to society as a whole.

I agree with you about the social advantages, although I think it's a mistake to romanticize the old social order. For one thing, we shouldn't assume that the fictional Cleavers really represented how most American families lived back then. Second, every era has its social turmoil - the 1950s were also a time of brutal racism and Cold War fears. The movie "Pleasantville" is a good fictional rebuttal to the romantic view of that decade.

I see a lot of merit to having more parental time at home. It could be June staying home, it could be Ward staying home with June working, or it could be both parents working part-time. The old social order didn't allow for that individual choice - it locked both men and women into certain roles against their will.

I agree again, either one staying home or some fair and equitable split best for the situation. We need choices, and I don't think we have much more of a choice today than the Cleaver's did - our status quo is just different, not really a choice any more than theirs. The era did have its drawbacks, as do all. I just don't think the tense Cold War fears were a result of the daily home life. Racism, sadly, was and is. Let's hope people get a lot smarter a lot faster.

First, bestiality is not a valid comparison, because that's an act of rape that causes harm to innocent creatures. Second, one could argue that consensual polygamy is not inherently immoral. But there are valid reasons to keep it illegal - in practice it is frequently not consensual on the women's part, involving exploitation and statutory rape. I'm not sure why. Your other examples aren't valid either, in my view, because they don't constitute committed relationships. True commitment involves monogamy, as well as a willingness to accept the legal responsibilities of marriage or civil union. If a couple doesn't intend to be committed and monogamous, why should government make their union legal?
But, you're making my point here. You're doing the same thing opponents of gay "marriage" do. You're putting your own thoughts into other people's lives. I'm expecting that some zoophile will tell you they have the "right" to be with their loving dog, it's just their nature. There are a lot of consensual relationships of multiple marriage out there. There are exploitive and statutory issues out there for hetero and homosexual relationships that cause a lot of furor, too (ask the Catholics), but I don't think they define "lifestyle" of either one. You're saying that there's a responsibility level and value to a monogamous relationship, just like some would say there's a responsibility and value to marriage. The people choosing not to follow that would (and do) argue that if we're going to change the rules, ALL other choices should be given the same rights, be allowed the same "rights"

This is easier LOL

 

[This_person]

Why did you edit the American Heritage Definition, which has the EXACT same definition as Miriam Websters. Here is the Actual nonedited Definition



Emphasis added



Obviously not, both dictionary sources, Miriam Websters and American Heritage have 2 Definitions for Marriage. One is a Union between Man and Woman AND ANOTHER that states Union between 2 PEOPLE. You (and others) trying to force your relgious doctrine onto others, are trying to re-define what it is.
A shotgun wedding is one example, notice you didnt touch upon Arranged marriages, of a marriage of Convenience, and not of love or religious leanings.



No that is not what i asked, maybe if you spent less time editing dictionary definitions you didnt like you'd retain it. Here is what i asked:

What i asked was how do different states handle Common Law marriage, if they dont recognize it?
Since Common Law marriage is recognized in some states and not in others, the problems with States that accept Gay Marriage verses those that do not, would be the same. it also blows your Social/Economic/ de-stabilizing society factor nonsense away.

Whew, hit a nerve by answering your question? I didn't edit the dictionary, I used a book in my office. Perhaps the on-line version has been updated for progressive ideology? I didn't answer arranged marriages because they're not relevant. I've known people in my family born in 1901 and on, and not a one ever knew of anyone in an arranged marriage in the United States. It would be like answering whether or not horses are better than cars for daily transit - a settled answer has been provided for a long, long time. I understood, and answered, your Common Law Marriage question. Different states have to recognize other states laws, per the Constitution. Thus, if Vermont says I can have a 13 year old wife, and I move to Ohio where that's illegal, it's no longer illegal - OH has to recognize my pedophilia - er, wife. If I have a motorcyle license in one state, I'm recognized in all states. If I have a same-sex spouse legally in one, I have it in all. Actually, it's the CAUSE of that destabilization of which I was speaking, not an answer to it.

 

[This_person]

Its interesting that both your (Non-progressive Updated) book in your office and the Online version have EXACTLY the same words and the only thing that is different is :a same-sex marriage. EVERY OTHER WORD in both definitions is EXACTLY the same....

Interesting also that you're ignoring the first, standard, definition of the word. My understanding of the definition does not come from a religious background, just the actual usage of the word. Do you really think that "a same-sex marriage" was in there in 1945? 55? 65? 75? 85? Probably not (I'm sure I'm full of BS though, right?)

Here's another one for you: Spouse
spouse
–noun
1. either member of a married pair in relation to the other; one's husband or wife.
(Just so you know, I looked this one up on the internet so you'd understand it.) When a married person is a husband, the spouse is the wife and vice versa. So, let's look up husband and wife (in this context):
Husband
hus·band
–noun
1. a married man, esp. when considered in relation to his wife.

Huh. So, if a husband is a man, and
......
Wife
wife
–noun
1. a woman joined in marriage to a man; a woman considered in relation to her husband; spouse.
2. a woman (archaic or dial., except in idioms): old wives' tale.
–verb (used without object), verb (used with object)
3. Rare. wive.
—Idiom
4. take to wife, to marry (a particular woman): He took an heiress to wife.

...a wife is a woman, how can there be a "same-sex" marriage? Kinda like an electrical outlet and the plug going into it both having prongs, it just doesn't work. Or, a "same color" rainbow spectrum.

Nope, doesn't work. Must be wrong.


And the rest that I answered? :shrug: