Microsoft formally opposes US Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act may have been passed in the US back in 1996, but the content of that law is now being opposed by Microsoft and a number of other companies and cities. This news was revealed in a amicus brief that was filed earlier this month but was formally revealed earlier this week.

The amicus brief, filed in the US Ninth District Court of Appeals, goes after the third portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the brief, Microsoft and the other companies included in the document state that the Act " ... forces us to discriminate against a class of our lawfully-married employees, upon whose welfare and morale our own success in part depends."

Besides Microsoft, the companies that joined in the amicus brief include Google, eBay, Electronic Arts, and Zynga. It also include the cities of New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Fransisco.

While the Defense of Marriage Act has been in place for over 15 years, the Obama Administration has said that it opposes the third portion of the act, feeling that it is unconstitutional. The administration said it would not defend the third part of the act in court on those grounds.

Source: US Defense of Marriage Act Amicus Brief

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Comcast rumored to launch 305 Mbps Internet tier

Next Story

HTC One X, One XL and One S confirmed to get Jelly Bean

108 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

It's really funny to see see all of the anti-gay marriage arguments -- they're all wrong. Period. This isn't a discussion anymore. This is stupid people vs intellectuals. If this country is truly founded on religious freedom, that includes freedom from religion and our laws shouldn't have to cross-reference people's beliefs.

Reading all sort of comments from conservative bigots who implied that homosexuality is a desease, I just felt disgusted... However, should homosexuality be recognized as a disease, won't gay people be protected against discrimation by the law like people with HIV or obese persons... These bigots are shooting themselves in the foot and should be ashamed of carrying such a bad image of the country they live in (US mostly if i'm correct) which a lot of people around the world turn to as the country of freedom and everything...

I wasn't sure about gay marriage which here in France is at debate, particularily after the election of our new president, Mr Hollande who promised to make it legal during the campain.

After reading such loads of craps from people "who have nothing against gays" or "have a lot of gay friends", I felt ashamed of myself not taking position against this kind of discrimation...

Marriage is a nothing but a contractual bond between two people, that's it. Religion has nothing to do with and never had... Homosexuality is not a trend of the 21st century, homosexuals are just more vocal nowadays.

If gay marriage is something you oppose, stay in your church, temple or whatever and let people live the life they want.

We are all born different but we have to live together in a spirit of acceptance and tolerance.

I support gay marriage from now on in my country and elsewhere.

its this kind of discussion that makes me believe that we are NOT an evolved species.
we are all humans, and should be focused on the best for our "neighbor", if he wants to share is life with another human from the same gender and he is happy with that, fine to me.

how can we even consider to solve another problems when we cant even take care of yourself as a species?

To my knowledge homosexuality is pretty common on all species. Accept that you are an animal like any other on earth, an evolved one, we like to thing, but in the other hand we are the one whom created the notion of evolved...

I live in Canada and I have been legally married to my same sex husband for six years. We have been together for twelve. The fear mongering that religious groups do saying they will be sued and forced to do things against doctrine is poppy ****. I am married. It's not a union or domestic partnership. It is a word. A man and a woman are married if its done by a priest or judge. A non catholic couple can't force a catholic priest to marry them so why could a gay couple? The sky hasn't fallen. We haven't wrecked society. We love each other and we are now fully protected by the law. It horrifies me that basic human rights and dignity are put on the public voting block when the legal system is supposed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities not allow bigots to vote them away. For those religious people that think gay people are so bad.... neither god or Jesus said persecute the gays. God did openly condemn adulterers. Shouldn't you be taking away their rights?

Bravo Microsoft and other companies for taking a stand and not just being capitalistic companies that care only about money and not the individuals that make and consume their products.

I live in Canada and I have been legally married to my same sex husband for six years. We have been together for twelve. The fear mongering that religious groups do saying they will be sued and forced to do things against doctrine is poppy ****. I am married. It's not a union or domestic partnership. It is a word. A man and a woman are married if its done by a priest or judge. A non catholic couple can't force a catholic priest to marry them so why could a gay couple? The sky hasn't fallen. We haven't wrecked society. We love each other and we are now fully protected by the law. It horrifies me that basic human rights and dignity are put on the public voting block when the legal system is supposed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities not allow bigots to vote them away. For those religious people that think gay people are so bad.... neither god or Jesus said persecute the gays. God did openly condemn adulterers. Shouldn't you be taking away their rights?

Bravo Microsoft and other companies for taking a stand and not just being capitalistic companies that care only about money and not the individuals that make and consume their products.

Darcman said,
I live in Canada and I have been legally married to my same sex husband for six years. We have been together for twelve. The fear mongering that religious groups do saying they will be sued and forced to do things against doctrine is poppy ****. I am married. It's not a union or domestic partnership. It is a word. A man and a woman are married if its done by a priest or judge. A non catholic couple can't force a catholic priest to marry them so why could a gay couple? The sky hasn't fallen. We haven't wrecked society. We love each other and we are now fully protected by the law. It horrifies me that basic human rights and dignity are put on the public voting block when the legal system is supposed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities not allow bigots to vote them away. For those religious people that think gay people are so bad.... neither god or Jesus said persecute the gays. God did openly condemn adulterers. Shouldn't you be taking away their rights?

Bravo Microsoft and other companies for taking a stand and not just being capitalistic companies that care only about money and not the individuals that make and consume their products.


Well said! Thanks for sharing your story

I am literally shocked at the Neowin crowd for being so uneducated and purposely ignorant on something that anyone in business in the USA should have encountered and be very aware about.

Before people make more 'why' and 'I don't like' and other insane comments, go do some homework on the subject, starting with DoMA and moving forward to the legal cases headed to the supreme court that demonstrate marriage and the discrimination and inequality that the law allows to gay people in general.

Start with place like:
http://www.afer.org/about/legal-team/

Notice that the two attorneys that are WORKING together on this case are the most prominent 'liberal' and 'conservative' attorneys in modern history. These are the attorneys that fought against each other on Bush V Gore.

The rest of the site is about the case the equal rights issues that came from Proposition 8 in California and other discriminatory laws. http://www.afer.org/

There are so many 'little' things that people that don't pay attention have no idea is happening in the USA, land of the freedom and free from religious persecution.

For example, one of my best friends 'wife' was considered a 'risk' to even VISIT the USA as they were afraid she might attempt to over stay her VISA, and was turned around and sent home twice, even though the legal paperwork and embassy had been directly involved. (Even had a freaking cavity search with lawyers present, because they wanted to make their point.) My friend HAD to move her life and company to Europe, because she was offered immigration status based on domestic partnership/marriage laws over 14 years ago.
**This was just freaking sickening and could make someone ashamed of being an American. A 25year old Lesbian being treated like a terrorist, and this was before 9/11...

Take a look at the general areas of rights and discrimination:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...arriage-benefits-30326.html

There is a maintained document that lists state by state and specific laws that purposely 'discriminated' against gay people.


So if you don't agree with equal rights in the USA for gay people, why?

If you are religious, say Christian, why do you defy what Jesus specifically talks about regarding this, because he NEVER condemned homosexuality, and it was RAMPANT at the time he was alive and the region he lived.

If you are conservative minded, why do you think the Government should make policies and laws that are personally invasive?

If you are liberal, why do you believe progression of social constructs do not apply to gay people, just everything else?


I have companies and rental properties in states that have no protection for sexual orientation. I have gay employees. If one parks funny or annoys me, I can walk up to them and terminate them on the spot at any time, as these states recognize being gay as a justification for termination. I can appeal and win against their claim for unemployment and even create problems with keeping their 401k, COBRA, and lots of other really messed up things.

Additionally, I can then contact their landlord if they are renting an apartment or house, and tell them they are gay. The landlord can dissolve their rental agreement and evict them in under 30 days. This becomes even more insane when they own a 'house' on 'leased' ground, as they lose their house, unless they can 'move it'.


So if a 'gay' person angered me or I was just evil (and this happens everyday) I can destroy their career, destroy any financial safety net they have, and even get them thrown out on the street. (I could NOT do any of these things to a straight person.)


Does this still sound fair and not a big issue? Still sound like something Jesus would condone? Still sound like something a real 'conservative' would support? Still sound like something a liberal would support?
Really?

No matter your political background or religious background, you have been taught better, and when have more 'education' on this issue seldom would ever seek to harm people like DoMA and other discrimination of Gay people does.


If ya really want to understand just the DoMA and benefit differences, there are over 1,300 of them at the Federal level alone in the USA, start reading here: http://www.thetaskforce.org/do...rts/reports/GAOBenefits.pdf

There are several thousand 'legal' and 'discrimination' differences between gay and straight people throughout the USA, with some state directly targeting gay people directly.

Seriously, take a minute to educate yourself and remove any ignorance you might have. Even seek out your religious teachings, I would bet you find they are not as clear about homosexuality as you might think.

PS People that have a 'repulsion' to gay people, and only think about it as 'sex' are the ones that have their own sexual identity issues and this often creates this aversive response.

Emotionally neutral topics do not insight aggression or response.

If after your research and personal soul searching you still choose to hate people, you have bigger problems than the fact that gay people exist.


--------------------------

Why this amazes me on Neowin, is that I realize the majority of people here probably do not work in the computer or technology industry, even though they claim to be experts.

The reason is simple, statistically computer engineers, designers, MIS/CIS/IT and programmers have a higher percentage of gay people than most other progressions.

They are highly creative and logical professions that draw gay men and gay women which often have bridge brain or additional emphasis on the left or right side of brain than straight people of the same gender.

I have met more gay people in the technology world and anyone in this industry would have been exposed to a lot of gay people.

You have better odds of meeting a gay person in programming or architectural design than you do attending a Cher concert. -Seriously

So it is strange to see so many 'anti-gay, or gay-ignorant' comments on a site that people in 'technology' visit.

Edited by thenetavenger, Jul 20 2012, 10:16pm :

thenetavenger said,

A lot

Nice post!
I think we can now assume there's no maximum length limit on the commenting system

Cøi said,

Nice post!
I think we can now assume there's no maximum length limit on the commenting system

We won't know until we try!

Cøi said,

Nice post!
I think we can now assume there's no maximum length limit on the commenting system

Wow that post was longer than any of his Windows NT history lessons to date, but it makes sense.

I don't get it. What meaning does it have in the American legislative system when a corporation "opposes" a legislative act? Was there some internal vote at MS and those other companies? And does it constitute of more than just a press statement? Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Jan Kratochv said,
I don't get it. What meaning does it have in the American legislative system when a corporation "opposes" a legislative act? Was there some internal vote at MS and those other companies? And does it constitute of more than just a press statement? Thanks for taking the time to answer.

A large, influential company publicly opposing an act can influence people to change their decision, especially if the company has provided reasons. Sometimes, a company will publicly oppose an act if the passing of that act negatively affects its employees' lives. Microsoft, Starbucks, and others publicly supported the legislation that would give residents of Washington the ability to obtain a marriage, earlier this year.

Deihmos said,
Isn't a marriage between a man and a woman?

somepeople want to change the definition.... Either way America has bigger fish to fry than worrying about a couple homos putting a ring on and living together. This, Abortion and other similar issues need to take a seat way back in the bus so maybe we can get this economy going again and get out of debt, fix our crappy heathcare system, medicare, social secuirty and other problems that are actually important!

Deihmos said,
Isn't a marriage between a man and a woman?

Marriage is a union between two people that love eachother. It shouldn't matter to anyone else if it's between a man and a woman, two men, or two women...

Deihmos said,
Isn't a marriage between a man and a woman?

Aren't all black people slaves?
No, because at some point we became civilized enough to realize slavery is horrible.

Deihmos said,
Isn't a marriage between a man and a woman?

Or a man and several women. What country and era are you referring?

It comes from law and is a contract of property, and how many 'women' the man can own. How many 'women' do you own?

bguy_1986 said,

somepeople want to change the definition.... Either way America has bigger fish to fry than worrying about a couple homos putting a ring on and living together. This, Abortion and other similar issues need to take a seat way back in the bus so maybe we can get this economy going again and get out of debt, fix our crappy heathcare system, medicare, social secuirty and other problems that are actually important!

Go look up 'not mutually exclusive'...

Just because I'm chewing bubble gum, I can still type 200wpm and listen to the news and be reading a book laying on my desk.

The government is not a monolithic structure.

(Think of it like NT, object based, can juggle a lot of things at onces on a lot of CPUs. It is not Linux that chokes under managing its own processes rather quickly.) =)

Aethec said,

Aren't all black people slaves?
No, because at some point we became civilized enough to realize slavery is horrible.
Actually this was a bad example! Black people are not the only group of people who were/still slaves. I could say aren't all white people rednecks? Bad analogy all the way around!!!!!

Deihmos said,
Isn't a marriage between a man and a woman?

Yes it is, but only because people like you horribly won't allow your peers to obtain a marriage.

marriage was made up by man just like everything else. If we want to do away with it who is really going to be negatively affect? minus some religious kooks who think everything has to be their way.

This is the 21st century. It's about time people stopped acting as if their stone age beliefs give them a right to discriminate against others. Good on Microsoft for standing up for the rights of their employees.

Javik said,
This is the 21st century. It's about time people stopped acting as if their stone age beliefs give them a right to discriminate against others. Good on Microsoft for standing up for the rights of their employees.

Agreed. I think people are going to find that it won't affect them one bit.

Why are businesses getting involved in politics anyway? Microsoft can't vote for or against this kind of thing.

Enron said,
Why are businesses getting involved in politics anyway? Microsoft can't vote for or against this kind of thing.

But they have the influence and power to take issues to court or get a law changed.

Enron said,
Why are businesses getting involved in politics anyway? Microsoft can't vote for or against this kind of thing.

Because it affects the lives of their workers and Microsoft's bank account when MS can't legally declare sick leave or maternity leave for tax purposes when a gay couple has a child or gets ill.

Enron said,
Why are businesses getting involved in politics anyway? Microsoft can't vote for or against this kind of thing.

Um, Citizens United and a few other Supreme Court rulings give corporations the 'rights' and 'free speech' of a person.

(Thanks to the non strict constructionists that are the Republican members of the Supreme court.)

Microsoft has as much 'legal' right as a coporation as any other person, the only exception is they can't cast a vote in the election, they get all the other benefits of being a person.

And if you doubt this, look it up. Recently a woman was MARRIED to a corporation under these laws in the USA.

And yes corporations should NOT have the power of free speech 'through money' or other 'person rights', I completely agree.

However as an employer, the Federal goverment FORCES Microsoft to discriminate against their own employees. So even if Microsoft offers benefits to same sex couples, they cannot opt of the Federal taxes that are levied against these benefits because they are see as external benefits and not household benefits that are tax except.

Straight man, female wife. Health benefits from Microsoft. They pay no additional taxes for these benefits.

Gay woman, female wife: Health benefits from Microsoft. They pay additional income taxes on ALL benefits, which is a rather large amount of money for lower income employees that are having to pay out $5000 extra a year taxes when their household income is around $20,000. So they are paying 1/4 more than a straight couple, and Microsoft has NO way to compensate them for this legally to even 'go around' the taxes.

Enron said,
Why are businesses getting involved in politics anyway? Microsoft can't vote for or against this kind of thing.

"Corporations are people, my friend" - Mitt Romney

Enron said,
Wow, that's interesting. If I can get married to a corporation, can I marry Microsoft? Can we joint file our taxes?

HAHAHA. Sign me up too. LOL

bj55555 said,
I love all the posts that begin: "I have nothing against gay relationships buuuuuuut...."

Exactly. It's like the posts "I have a lot of gay friends, buuuut... I don't allow them around my children..." (An actual post from the Neowin forums...) LMAO

If you have nothing against gay relationships, you should have nothing against them being acknowledged... If you do, then one of these things doesn't add up... LOL

bj55555 said,
I love all the posts that begin: "I have nothing against gay relationships buuuuuuut...."

Same goes for everything... "I'm not racist, but...", "I'm not sexist, but..." "I don't want to offend you, but...".

If you want to preserve marriage as union between a man and a woman then remove all the financial benefits associated with it. Gay couples can raise children and be a head-of-household but they don't recieve the same benefits. In many places the can't even claim their significant other as their "spouse". That's what the problem truly is. Once you take away the disparity in benefits none of the other things matter.

Salgoth said,
If you want to preserve marriage as union between a man and a woman then remove all the financial benefits associated with it. Gay couples can raise children and be a head-of-household but they don't recieve the same benefits. In many places the can't even claim their significant other as their "spouse". That's what the problem truly is. Once you take away the disparity in benefits none of the other things matter.

Except it isn't just a few 'special benefits' to married couples... Adopt that child as gay couple, notice that the other parent can be ripped from the child's life for no reason.

There are over 1200 disparities between gay and straight and less than 1/4 of them are because of benefits alloted to married couples.

In states you can be fired just for being gay, no unemployment insurance, no recourse, and even if you are harassed or other things that happen the law protects, no way to fight against it. You can't even demand equal pay and this is where it extends BEYOND the marriage differences.

People for years say that with 'legal' dealings a gay couple can establish the same agreements and equality to marriage. This is false. Get benefits for a spouse and watch the state and federal government deduct additional taxes from those benefits because they are seen as a 'third party' and not a 'household' benefit.

Personally, I don't think gay/lesbian marriages should be allowed. But that is MY personal OPINION. Doesn't mean I think any more, or less, of those who live in that situation. However, just because I don't believe in it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. It is a persons CHOICE whether to marry a man, a woman, or same sex, and I think the government should stay out of it. Too much government intrusion in our lives now as it is. It is a handful of government officials who believe the same thing that I do, however, they are using their power to enforce their own personal beliefs, and I think that is the biggest wrong doing any government official can do.

Marriage is a governmental thing, in the legal sense of it. There are tax benefits and other legal aspects to it that the government is involved in. They have more say into who gets married than any church does, that ceremony done at a wedding doesn't legally wed a couple, a set of signatures on some government documents does.

In this way, it is entirely up to the government to decide who to let marry (at least in the legal sense) and I do hope that they open up to gay marriage

Sraf said,
Marriage is a governmental thing, in the legal sense of it. There are tax benefits and other legal aspects to it that the government is involved in. They have more say into who gets married than any church does, that ceremony done at a wedding doesn't legally wed a couple, a set of signatures on some government documents does.

In this way, it is entirely up to the government to decide who to let marry (at least in the legal sense) and I do hope that they open up to gay marriage

Agreed. I just do not understand why more people don't see this. This involves the church a heck of a lot less than these people think.

Seriously, while I dont really have anything against gay couples, Americans really need to find better things to do with their time and minds. Its not like people are burning gays on a pike or something. There are more serious problems like people actually dying of hunger in your own country. Get a grip. These companies know that the brains of this generation are obsessed with the trivial so they sell the idea that they are part of some solution so they can sell more products to you. Morality is based on the current socio-political climate. Why dont we just let society adapt naturally instead of ramming ideals down peoples throats and call them stupid biggots if they dont agree. PS im an athiest I just dont like this new Orwellian Big Brother role the young and inexperienced have created for themselves.

By that logic the US civil rights movement wasn't important because soldiers were dying in the Vietnam war, and unemployment isn't an issue now because people are dying of HIV/AIDS and cancer. Unless companies like Microsoft take action to defend the rights of their employees the situation simply won't improve and those people will move to companies that do care.

To simply say "get a grip" to gay-couples that are denied the same opportunities as hetero-couples is offensive. People used the same sort of arguments to prevent women and black people from voting, yet few would consider that acceptable now. Gay people may not be being burnt on a stake or hung from trees but they still haven't achieved equality and face a lot of prejudice.

Sraf said,
You know, it is possible to fix more than one problem at a time

You mentioned Tyranny of the majority, but how do you know that your desires to change what is clearly evolution isnt tyranny on your part? Its all perspective. As i said before, i dont see gay people getting burnt on pikes and secondly who determines this new world morality? Has some god or another bestowed upon you and this generation some divine right? Ill give you an example of the US lunacy. In your country most men are circumsized yet women are not. It is considered mutilation of the genitals on women. Why is this? Why do americans think male circumcision is ok and its almost not at all seen for what it is and outlawed? Second example, why is it that fat people are persecuted for their weight when science knows many overweight and obese people have much less of a hormone that regulates hunger - leptin ? Why dont you fight these battles?

We do fight these battles, just because you aren't hearing about it on the news doesn't mean it's not happening

Eventually, when we get a sort of "critical mass" of attention on something, then you will have big news about it, but some of your examples may never get this as the problems themselves may simply go away before such a critical mass can be achieved. (Mainly that obesity thing, which in a way does have a sort of critical mass towards it, though generally aimed at certain causative factors, and the latest fad cure. Scientists are still working on long term fixes for people who do have problems such as your mentioned hormonal imbalance. Things in the US like Obamacare might even speed up development and testing of such treatments or cures as lowering the amount of overweight people will lower the costs to the government and insurance companies that need to pay for healthcare)

Edited by Sraf, Jul 20 2012, 5:34pm :

Sraf said,
We do fight these battles, just because you aren't hearing about it on the news doesn't mean it's not happening

Eventually, when we get a sort of "critical mass" of attention on something, then you will have big news about it, but some of your examples may never get this as the problems themselves may simply go away before such a critical mass can be achieved. (Mainly that obesity thing, which in a way does have a sort of critical mass towards it, though generally aimed at certain causative factors, and the latest fad cure. Scientists are still working on long term fixes for people who do have problems such as your mentioned hormonal imbalance. Things in the US like Obamacare might even speed up development and testing of such treatments or cures as lowering the amount of overweight people will lower the costs to the government and insurance companies that need to pay for healthcare)


Wow there it is!!!! Overweight people must have a treatable disease?!?! Funny how that works yet being gay is not seen allowed to be seen like that. Medical science would only see rebuke if it was to seek a cure for being gay these days or even really investigate it in that way. Do you see what i mean just a little. I think fat kids get a lot of bullying in schools too and even in modern society it is treated as a negative. I think the best course of action is to try instead of forcing people into your mindset maybe more attempts should be made for people to have empathy. That is really the way to kill a million problems with one stone.

You are attempting to set up a straw man using a false equivalency. I will not discuss this any more with you

Iridium said,

You mentioned Tyranny of the majority, but how do you know that your desires to change what is clearly evolution isnt tyranny on your part? Its all perspective. As i said before, i dont see gay people getting burnt on pikes and secondly who determines this new world morality? Has some god or another bestowed upon you and this generation some divine right? Ill give you an example of the US lunacy. In your country most men are circumsized yet women are not. It is considered mutilation of the genitals on women. Why is this? Why do americans think male circumcision is ok and its almost not at all seen for what it is and outlawed? Second example, why is it that fat people are persecuted for their weight when science knows many overweight and obese people have much less of a hormone that regulates hunger - leptin ? Why dont you fight these battles?

Speak with a doctor and he will explain the reasons to perform that surgery to male subjects.

theyarecomingforyou said,
By that logic the US civil rights movement wasn't important because soldiers were dying in the Vietnam war, and unemployment isn't an issue now because people are dying of HIV/AIDS and cancer. Unless companies like Microsoft take action to defend the rights of their employees the situation simply won't improve and those people will move to companies that do care.

To simply say "get a grip" to gay-couples that are denied the same opportunities as hetero-couples is offensive. People used the same sort of arguments to prevent women and black people from voting, yet few would consider that acceptable now. Gay people may not be being burnt on a stake or hung from trees but they still haven't achieved equality and face a lot of prejudice.

And they ARE suffering serious injustices, like being unable to visit and act on behalf of their spouses and then dealing with severe penalties when one passes away. Marriage is not just something that they would like, it's a necessity and only fair.

What you are suggesting seems uncannily similar to what was done to Alan Turing. Being gay was considered a disease at that time and he was injected with female hormones as a "treatment."

Sraf said,
We do fight these battles, just because you aren't hearing about it on the news doesn't mean it's not happening

Eventually, when we get a sort of "critical mass" of attention on something, then you will have big news about it, but some of your examples may never get this as the problems themselves may simply go away before such a critical mass can be achieved. (Mainly that obesity thing, which in a way does have a sort of critical mass towards it, though generally aimed at certain causative factors, and the latest fad cure. Scientists are still working on long term fixes for people who do have problems such as your mentioned hormonal imbalance. Things in the US like Obamacare might even speed up development and testing of such treatments or cures as lowering the amount of overweight people will lower the costs to the government and insurance companies that need to pay for healthcare)

Iridium said,
Seriously, while I dont really have anything against gay couples, Americans really need to find better things to do with their time and minds. Its not like people are burning gays on a pike or something. There are more serious problems like people actually dying of hunger in your own country. Get a grip. These companies know that the brains of this generation are obsessed with the trivial so they sell the idea that they are part of some solution so they can sell more products to you. Morality is based on the current socio-political climate. Why dont we just let society adapt naturally instead of ramming ideals down peoples throats and call them stupid biggots if they dont agree. PS im an athiest I just dont like this new Orwellian Big Brother role the young and inexperienced have created for themselves.

So wage discrimination and tax discrimination is ok with you and a tiny thing?

Wow... How about your company, government decide that your eye color is offensive and reduces your income through additional taxes and lower pay by 50%.

Then you might not see it as so trivial?

Or better yet in 1/2 the states in the USA, if you are gay, the employer can fire you at anytime, will no legal repercussions and not even have to pay out unemployment insurance, as they can uphold their right to fire you because you are gay.

How about we change the last one to your eye color as well, since you think discrimination is no big thing. Then you can wonder if your boss will terminate you at any time with no legal protection under the law that EVERYONE else gets.


Ignorance is not very becoming.

Iridium said,

Wow there it is!!!! Overweight people must have a treatable disease?!?! Funny how that works yet being gay is not seen allowed to be seen like that. Medical science would only see rebuke if it was to seek a cure for being gay these days or even really investigate it in that way. Do you see what i mean just a little. I think fat kids get a lot of bullying in schools too and even in modern society it is treated as a negative. I think the best course of action is to try instead of forcing people into your mindset maybe more attempts should be made for people to have empathy. That is really the way to kill a million problems with one stone.

Funny that you mention that. There are measurable differences in hormone and neurotransmitter types and levels which could very well be due to a genetic mutation. Even single nucleotide DNA alterations can have profound effects on a protein expressed by a mutated gene. The hard link has never been made as there are many variables and research on this matter is highly controversial and even forbidden, but there are indications that it is very probable.
I wonder what that would do to equal rights once being gay becomes a disease instead of a state of being.

surrealvortex said,
What you are suggesting seems uncannily similar to what was done to Alan Turing. Being gay was considered a disease at that time and he was injected with female hormones as a "treatment."

The difference being that that treatment was
A) Forced
B) Ineffective
C) Hazardous to the health of the individual

Any obesity treatment we come up with today will get my support is NONE of the above is done/happens. The idea of reducing obesity is a health concern, being overweight is not healthy and it puts a strain on out healthcare systems, but forcing people to take a treatment without their consent is wrong (and in the case of Alan Turing, he was given a fake choice, with our modern example of obesity, I would be against any sort of law or ruling that essentially forces a person to take a treatment it must be 100% elective); if the treatment is ineffective, then there is no point in using it (and this comes up all the time with "miracle" treatments) and finally, if it is harmful to a person's health then it should not be allowed (FDA) and would be stupid to use as you are just trading one problem for another

Finally, treating obesity and being equal to homosexuality is wrong. One is something that someone is born with and cannot be changed, the other is a post natal issue (even with the aforementioned hormone imbalance causing increased hunger urges) that can be controlled through diet (not easy for those with the imbalance, but eating fewer processed foods can help) and increased physical activity (issue is where do we find the time? I found it on my lunch break and on my way to and from work, but those are special cases that not everyone has). There are some other issues that we as a society can do to help the current obesity epidemic, but none would I recommend to be forced upon society. To give an example, I would recommend not forcing kids to eat their whole dinner if they do not want to, you don't have to give them dessert afterwards (or use this as a reward to get them to eat), but forcing them to finish when they do not feel hungry only really teaches them how to override or ignore their appetite

TL;DR: Obesity != Homosexuality, Forced treatment == immoral, treatment must be net positive (Turing's was not, and obesity treatments that are being worked on are tested to make sure that they do not have adverse side effects)

Fritzly said,

Speak with a doctor and he will explain the reasons to perform that surgery to male subjects.

Assuming he's not a troll, I believe he is referring to religion based circumcisions rather than medically based ones

Thief000 said,

I wonder what that would do to equal rights once being gay becomes a disease instead of a state of being.

This is bound to come up eventually, as we continue to understand our genes, how to modify them and bring about "desirable" changes. There are moral implications of such manipulations that will be brought up on that road such as: Should we even be doing this? What could be the unforeseen consequences? Is X, Y or Z trait actually harmful? What is a genetic disease? Elective, or preventative? What about traits that are not "fashionable" right now, but may be desired in five years?

It will not be easy to come up with these answers, and opinion will be very split on them, but at the very least, right now, a person's sexual orientation cannot be changed (aside from existent to non existent) and it does not harm society or the individual to let people who are homosexual "just be"

Sraf I think you sound extremely logical by the way. I NEVER said that being gay was a disease. All I am trying to do is expose you to your own flawed thinking. The way people think of issues is generated by modern media and pop culture. Its funny peoples certainty of the causitive effects of these "conditions", yet i wouldnt profess this level of understanding eventhough my biochem degree is close to completion. What happened to Turing is a fricken attrocity. The man helped win ww2 and pretty much gave us the model used in all modern computing. I think through other peoples comments to mine simply furthered what i was saying. You say anything and suddenly you condone the worst attrocities. Modern society loves using this winning strategy lately.

neufuse said,
companies shouldn't be pushing for stuff like this, the public themselves should be based on their beliefs

A company shouldn't defend the rights of its employees?

We often need large powerful champions of people's rights, especially when it comes to laws involving minorities. I recommend that you look up what is called "Tyranny of the majority"

farmeunit said,

Like their right to get married if they're gay?

Like their right to take sick leave when their loved one gets ill or dies.

Sraf said,
We often need large powerful champions of people's rights, especially when it comes to laws involving minorities. I recommend that you look up what is called "Tyranny of the majority"

Absolutely. It is NEVER appropriate to put the rights of a minority up to popular vote of the majority. This is why things like inter-racial marriage required a Supreme Court ruling, and why companies have to push for the right thing sometimes. I applaud these companies for taking a stand against this very discriminatory law. Their being able to marry does not affect anyone else and as such it is not their place to vote against it.

neufuse said,
companies shouldn't be pushing for stuff like this, the public themselves should be based on their beliefs

And yet after rulings giving corporations legal rights equal to a human being, you have a problem when they fight to NOT discriminate against their own employees?

RTA The LAW forces Microsoft and other to discriminate against their own employees. Microsoft CANNOT provide the same benefits or options to these employees because of the law.

Here think this over unless you believe in Fascism...
When Microsoft pays health care for the 'partner' of a person, the law FORCES Microsoft to deduct taxes from the health care premiums they paid out as income, where a married couple these are taxable income. So the LAW prevents Microsoft from offering the same benefits and pay to these people. There is no way around this, no matter how good Microsoft wants to treat or 'equally' treat its employees, the tax laws prevent the recognition of a same sex marriage, and forces Microsoft to tax their benefits and treat the benefits differently.

I know a couple that was an airline employee that had great benefits for partners, but they only made about $18,000 a year, and because the couple was 'same sex' they paid out an extra $4,000 in taxes a year just based on the airline benefits. $4,000 is a lot of money for a couple at this income level, and is discrimination, pure and simple.

If ya think I'm making this up, go look up Ted Olsen, he represented Bush in Bush v Gore in 2000, and is a very conservative minded person in the USA. He agree with Microsoft and has been fighting to stop the UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'discrimination' of same sex couples for several years now.

BajiRav said,
What does Microsoft or Google or likes have anything to do with DOMA?

Did you read the article because they made it pretty clear.

No, Obama administration said they would enforce the law, but they believed the law was not constitutional and they would not defend it in court.

AtriusNY said,
No, Obama administration said they would enforce the law, but they believed the law was not constitutional and they would not defend it in court.

Essentially, yes. He wants the votes, so he's saying he supports something, but won't actually do anything. Sounds very Obama'esqu...

Fritzly said,
Good, very good. Bravo MS.

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.

Thief000 said,

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.


Agreed. How things are going, I'm getting scared.

Thief000 said,
Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that?

An injustice that is thousands of years old is still an injustice.

Thief000 said,

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.

That status of being "married" is a legal term. If you want to come up with a term for that very special kind of "married" relationship that is capable of producing spawn even though there's really no legal requirement for producing spawn in such a relationship and no legal requirement that the parents of said spawn to stay in the relationship forever, then go right ahead.

Thief000 said,

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.

Things change. Get over it.

bj55555 said,

That status of being "married" is a legal term. If you want to come up with a term for that very special kind of "married" relationship that is capable of producing spawn even though there's really no legal requirement for producing spawn in such a relationship and no legal requirement that the parents of said spawn to stay in the relationship forever, then go right ahead.

And as soon as they make it legal all the lawyers start descending upon the religious organizations for whom marriage is much more than a legal contract, but a holy sacrament. Religious organizations take marriage much more seriously, if you've been divorced you can't even get married in a church ever again. They will be sued into oblivion by these changes. Religious freedom, the foundation and purpose of this country, seems to be falling more and more by the wayside recently.

So all of these companies are taking anti-religious stances. They care about their gay employees but what about their religious employees who will be materially affected by this kind of a decision? How about the companies not choose sides and leave matrimony/relationship concerns outside of the workplace where they have no place being.

Avatar Roku said,

And as soon as they make it legal all the lawyers start descending upon the religious organizations for whom marriage is much more than a legal contract, but a holy sacrament. Religious organizations take marriage much more seriously, if you've been divorced you can't even get married in a church ever again. They will be sued into oblivion by these changes. Religious freedom, the foundation and purpose of this country, seems to be falling more and more by the wayside recently.

So all of these companies are taking anti-religious stances. They care about their gay employees but what about their religious employees who will be materially affected by this kind of a decision? How about the companies not choose sides and leave matrimony/relationship concerns outside of the workplace where they have no place being.

Well, I think you are wrong. A religion is an option, you don't have to follow a religion, thus, if you join one is because you believe in its dogmas. And the freedom of religion and speech will guarantee that each religion preach what they think is appropriate for them.

If a homosexual does not agree with a religion, he can easily find one he agrees. Or, alternatively, he can start his own...

Thief000 said,

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.

A few years ago I kinda felt the same way and I shamefully admit that. These days I could care less. If you love someone you should be able to marry them IF that's what you want in the first place.

We live on a planet that is billions of years old on which humans have been around for a few million years out of which civilization occupies a tiny fraction. We are an advanced species, relatively speaking. You won't find your cat surfing the web or your dog making a daily commute to work. We're smart enough to know that letting gay people marry isn't going to affect anyone adversely... unless you allow it to.

A little perspective goes a long way. Let people be happy.

Avatar Roku said,

And as soon as they make it legal all the lawyers start descending upon the religious organizations for whom marriage is much more than a legal contract, but a holy sacrament. Religious organizations take marriage much more seriously, if you've been divorced you can't even get married in a church ever again. They will be sued into oblivion by these changes. Religious freedom, the foundation and purpose of this country, seems to be falling more and more by the wayside recently.

So all of these companies are taking anti-religious stances. They care about their gay employees but what about their religious employees who will be materially affected by this kind of a decision? How about the companies not choose sides and leave matrimony/relationship concerns outside of the workplace where they have no place being.

Ever heard of the "Sacra rota"?
If you have enough money you can have your catholic, indissoluble marriage annulled.

Thief000 said,

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.

Exactly!!! I don't care what a gay couple does if they wish to call it something else instead of "Marriage" then do it I dont' care if they get the same rights as a married couple does as long as the name is different, that would solve all sorts of problems.

sava700 said,

Exactly!!! I don't care what a gay couple does if they wish to call it something else instead of "Marriage" then do it I dont' care if they get the same rights as a married couple does as long as the name is different, that would solve all sorts of problems.

"Separate but equal" is not equal. Marriage, like it or not is a legal term and the same legal term should be applied to all Marriages. The church is not going to be acknowledging these gay marriages, and that is fine. No one is arguing that point. But our government SHOULD and it should be the same Marriage everyone else is able to enter into.

Thief000 said,

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.

So you think your better than gay people ?

TechJunkie81 said,

So you think your better than gay people ?

Where does it say that? Gay people are different from straight people.
The key word is different and the words gay and straight are differentiators, otherwise those words wouldn't exist in the first place.
That is why their "marriage" shouldn't be called a marriage. Acknowledge their relationships with a different word, but with the same legal benefits.

Thief000 said,

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.

Why don't we just give every relationship a name like that in the eyes of the law? There's no reason the government shouldn't be able to put straight people in a 'union,' too, although that term may have a little too much baggage. And if you want a marriage, you can go to a priest, or what have you, regardless of your orientation. If they'll do it, go crazy. If not, go find another one. It's a little strange that we're treating a religious sacrament and a law as the same thing.

Thief000 said,

Where does it say that? Gay people are different from straight people.
The key word is different and the words gay and straight are differentiators, otherwise those words wouldn't exist in the first place.
That is why their "marriage" shouldn't be called a marriage. Acknowledge their relationships with a different word, but with the same legal benefits.

And we can have separate water fountains too!

Thief000 said

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that? I have nothing against gay relationships, but I do agree they should not be allowed to be "married". Give them a relationship contract or whatever you might call it, but keep the term marriage out of it.

If you don't think gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, you do have something against gay people

Avatar Roku said,

And as soon as they make it legal all the lawyers start descending upon the religious organizations for whom marriage is much more than a legal contract, but a holy sacrament. Religious organizations take marriage much more seriously, if you've been divorced you can't even get married in a church ever again. They will be sued into oblivion by these changes.

No. The lawyers can't do anything. Your slippery slope argument is just ridiculous.


Religious freedom, the foundation and purpose of this country, seems to be falling more and more by the wayside recently.

Religious freedom is not a license to trample on the freedoms of others. That's all there is to it.


So all of these companies are taking anti-religious stances.

It's not an anti-religious stance. It's an anti-discrimination stance.


They care about their gay employees but what about their religious employees who will be materially affected by this kind of a decision?

How are religious employees materially affected by this kind of decision? Mind your own business and nothing will change for you. You're being overly dramatic.

Thief000 said,

I disagree. Marriage has always been a bond between a man and a woman, suddenly now after thousands and thousands of years do we need to change that?

Women used to not be able to vote or have equal rights. Slavery in the US happened for a couple hundred years. Yea...things dont need to change because they have been working fine for a long time.

But seriously, I dont really care if gay people can marry or not. Nothing wrong with it and just because the law says a union is between a man/woman doesnt mean things dont need to change.

And if anyone is getting scared of the changes in gay rights, well....you have bigger problems that the issues at hand and you may need to check yourself and think hard at how you feel about gay people in general.

jakem1 said,

Things change. Get over it.

Ignorance and Intelligence debating itself all over again. If we continue to get over everything because no one cares about right or wrong, nothing will remain dignified.

sava700 said,

Exactly!!! I don't care what a gay couple does if they wish to call it something else instead of "Marriage" then do it I dont' care if they get the same rights as a married couple does as long as the name is different, that would solve all sorts of problems.


And people just allowing them to call it marriage will solve this entire problem. You want the problem solved? Then allow them to call it marriage. It's ridiculous you wish to prohibit use of the term but you're fine with the arrangement.

humanz. said,

Ignorance and Intelligence debating itself all over again. If we continue to get over everything because no one cares about right or wrong, nothing will remain dignified.


I'm pretty sure he meant to get over the changes that aren't wrong. Allowing same-sex marriage is not wrong because it doesn't harm people. Things can only be reasonably deemed wrong if they cause harm.

Avatar Roku said,

And as soon as they make it legal all the lawyers start descending upon the religious organizations for whom marriage is much more than a legal contract, but a holy sacrament. Religious organizations take marriage much more seriously, if you've been divorced you can't even get married in a church ever again. They will be sued into oblivion by these changes. Religious freedom, the foundation and purpose of this country, seems to be falling more and more by the wayside recently.

So all of these companies are taking anti-religious stances. They care about their gay employees but what about their religious employees who will be materially affected by this kind of a decision? How about the companies not choose sides and leave matrimony/relationship concerns outside of the workplace where they have no place being.


I am always puzzled over why/how people feel that the Churches will get sued if Gay Marriage becomes legal, Churches are allowed allowed to Marry whomever they went (regardless if it is legally recognized). If you truly want religious freedom then you would be fighting for the Government to get out of the Marriage business completely.

You also mention that you feel that companies should not take sides in this... Would you be ecstatic if Microsoft came out and announced they only supported traditional Marriage?

Jose_49 said,

Agreed. How things are going, I'm getting scared.
What are you afraid about?

Just because things "have always been" doesn't mean they are right. That's a fallacy used by people obeying the Bible to the letter, just because they come in prints with very old papers.

Gay men and women never saw as much recognition as today. So it only makes sense to follow that path on understanding and respect by adjusting some aging laws.

Avatar Roku said,

And as soon as they make it legal all the lawyers start descending upon the religious organizations for whom marriage is much more than a legal contract, but a holy sacrament. Religious organizations take marriage much more seriously, if you've been divorced you can't even get married in a church ever again. They will be sued into oblivion by these changes. Religious freedom, the foundation and purpose of this country, seems to be falling more and more by the wayside recently.

So all of these companies are taking anti-religious stances. They care about their gay employees but what about their religious employees who will be materially affected by this kind of a decision? How about the companies not choose sides and leave matrimony/relationship concerns outside of the workplace where they have no place being.

not to prove u wrong but my dads been divorced and he was aloud to remarry in a church =]

Thief000 said,

Where does it say that? Gay people are different from straight people.
The key word is different and the words gay and straight are differentiators, otherwise those words wouldn't exist in the first place.
That is why their "marriage" shouldn't be called a marriage. Acknowledge their relationships with a different word, but with the same legal benefits.


Gay people are no different from straight people, and neither are their relationships. It is the same love that a heterosexual couple shares. It should be recognized by their government (The same government that acknowledges straight relationships as well) as the same too. There is no argument supporting discriminating against a minority that would not be bigoted...

humanz. said,

Ignorance and Intelligence debating itself all over again. If we continue to get over everything because no one cares about right or wrong, nothing will remain dignified.


Wow. Just. Wow.

There is nothing "undignified" about gay people OR their relationships...

M_Lyons10 said,

Gay people are no different from straight people, and neither are their relationships. It is the same love that a heterosexual couple shares. It should be recognized by their government (The same government that acknowledges straight relationships as well) as the same too. There is no argument supporting discriminating against a minority that would not be bigoted...

And that is where I disagree. Gay relationships have no reproductive value and therefor are different from straight people (see a post below about genetics and biochemistry). They adhere to the same sex instead of the opposite sex that is by far the majority in all of nature on this planet. That is why I think you are on the defensive so much, because you are in the minority.
I agree with you for the rest of your arguments. Nowhere in my posts have I said that gay people don't share the same feelings or commitment. I agree they should be recognized by the government and have the same legal benefits as a straight marriage, that way you have your equal rights. It just shouldn't be called a marriage (which should be reserved for straight couples) but another legal term for gay union.

Edited by Thief000, Jul 22 2012, 8:20am :

Thief000 said,

And that is where I disagree. Gay relationships have no reproductive value and therefor are different from straight people (see a post below about genetics and biochemistry). They adhere to the same sex instead of the opposite sex that is by far the majority in all of nature on this planet. That is why I think you are on the defensive so much, because you are in the minority.
I agree with you for the rest of your arguments. Nowhere in my posts have I said that gay people don't share the same feelings or commitment. I agree they should be recognized by the government and have the same legal benefits as a straight marriage, that way you have your equal rights. It just shouldn't be called a marriage (which should be reserved for straight couples) but another legal term for gay union.


Opposite-sex couples that choose not to reproduce have no reproductive value, and some of them exist. Your arguments against this are weak. Same-sex couples do not reproduce, but neither do infertile couples or those couples who choose not to procreate.

Calling it a marriage causes no problem whatsoever. It won't stop the couples reproducing who wish to reproduce. Not allowing gay and bisexual people to call it a marriage is continuing to discriminate and treat them differently to heterosexual people; yet allowing them to will cause absolutely no harm and will not impact society in a negative way.

Calum said,

Opposite-sex couples that choose not to reproduce have no reproductive value, and some of them exist. Your arguments against this are weak. Same-sex couples do not reproduce, but neither do infertile couples or those couples who choose not to procreate.

Calling it a marriage causes no problem whatsoever. It won't stop the couples reproducing who wish to reproduce. Not allowing gay and bisexual people to call it a marriage is continuing to discriminate and treat them differently to heterosexual people; yet allowing them to will cause absolutely no harm and will not impact society in a negative way.

But those are still statistically insignificant, It's the natural possibility here that weighs, not the choice or aberration. That is why your arguments are weak. You are simply hoping for people to overlook those facts and that your minority becomes something equal to the majority that you are not and is simply naturally impossible.
It is no more discrimination and differentiation if the values are the same than calling a member of the opposite sex a man or woman. You are simply afraid that the new term for gay union will have a stigma attached to it (that has a negative effect), just like other people attach value to marriage being between a man and a woman. The differentiation is already there in it by being called a gay marriage by some people, so why not make it even simpler?

Edited by Thief000, Jul 22 2012, 11:18am :

Thief000 said,

But those are still statistically insignificant, It's the natural possibility here that weighs, not the choice or aberration. That is why your arguments are weak. You are simply hoping for people to overlook those facts and that your minority becomes something equal to the majority that you are not and is simply naturally impossible.
It is no more discrimination and differentiation if the values are the same than calling a member of the opposite sex a man or woman. You are simply afraid that the new term for gay union will have a stigma attached to it (that has a negative effect), just like other people attach value to marriage being between a man and a woman. The differentiation is already there in it by being called a gay marriage by some people, so why not make it even simpler?


But none of what you say appears to actually explain why you believe there is a problem with calling it marriage; you seem to indicate that you believe marriage should be about procreation, but you don't state what problems, if any, you believe will result from allowing same-sex marriage. You suggest we make it simpler because some people call it "gay marriage." The best and easiest way to make it simpler would be to allow same-sex couples to call it a marriage; that way, soon enough, everyone will call it "marriage," instead of "gay marriage."

Whether those are statistically insignificant or not, they still exist, and it is hypocritical of someone to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry for the reason they cannot reproduce while simultaneously allowing infertile couples to marry or couples that choose not to procreate.

The fact you bring up reproduction is ridiculous. Nowadays, most people marry someone because they love that person, no matter what you believe marriage is supposed to be about. You believe marriage is supposed to be about procreation, but many people don't. So why force your views on other people, making their life worse, when you have the power to allow these people to enjoy life as much as you do? Purposely making another person's life worse is a terrible thing to do when you don't have to. Do you understand how much marriage means to some couples?

Calum said,

But none of what you say appears to actually explain why you believe there is a problem with calling it marriage; you seem to indicate that you believe marriage should be about procreation, but you don't state what problems, if any, you believe will result from allowing same-sex marriage. You suggest we make it simpler because some people call it "gay marriage." The best and easiest way to make it simpler would be to allow same-sex couples to call it a marriage; that way, soon enough, everyone will call it "marriage," instead of "gay marriage."

Whether those are statistically insignificant or not, they still exist, and it is hypocritical of someone to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry for the reason they cannot reproduce while simultaneously allowing infertile couples to marry or couples that choose not to procreate.

The fact you bring up reproduction is ridiculous. Nowadays, most people marry someone because they love that person, no matter what you believe marriage is supposed to be about. You believe marriage is supposed to be about procreation, but many people don't. So why force your views on other people, making their life worse, when you have the power to allow these people to enjoy life as much as you do? Purposely making another person's life worse is a terrible thing to do when you don't have to. Do you understand how much marriage means to some couples?

It's about the science of nature and the differentiation and nomentclature in it. Once you'll get that, you'll get my point. Though I sincerely doubt you ever will with terms as "hypocritical" and "ridiculous" already showing up.
Marriage is not about procreation, it is about a bond that can have the possibility of procreation, that is where you misinterpret again. You assume things I did not say every single time.
You can still bein a gay relationship and be happily "married" and call it different because that is what it is "different" and that is just plain science fact.

Thief000 said,

It's about the science of nature and the differentiation and nomentclature in it. Once you'll get that, you'll get my point. Though I sincerely doubt you ever will with terms as "hypocritical" and "ridiculous" already showing up.
Marriage is not about procreation, it is about a bond that can have the possibility of procreation, that is where you misinterpret again. You assume things I did not say every single time.
You can still bein a gay relationship and be happily "married" and call it different because that is what it is "different" and that is just plain science fact.


The relationship isn't scientifically different in the sense that it is two adult humans involved in a loving union. It's only scientifically different if you choose to think in less broad terms. The relationship is the same if you acknowledge that it is two adult humans in love.

As I asked in my previous comment, why do you believe you should decide how others live their life? You believe marriage should only be obtainable by those who have a bond that could lead to procreation, but other people don't feel that way. Many of us believe that two people who are in love should be able to obtain a marriage. So why should your opinion be valued higher than mine, and why should your opinion be used to negatively affect people's lives, when allowing them to marry will cause no harm? If you think harm will be caused by allowing them to marry, please enlighten me as to which harm you believe will result. I am confident that no harm will be caused.

Do you like contributing to ruining other people's lives? How does it make you feel to know that you are contributing to causing many innocent people great upset, making them cry, helping to ensure they will never know the deep bond that they've always longed for, and they will never experience what they've always desired?

Calum said,

The relationship isn't scientifically different in the sense that it is two adult humans involved in a loving union. It's only scientifically different if you choose to think in less broad terms. The relationship is the same if you acknowledge that it is two adult humans in love.

As I asked in my previous comment, why do you believe you should decide how others live their life? You believe marriage should only be obtainable by those who have a bond that could lead to procreation, but other people don't feel that way. Many of us believe that two people who are in love should be able to obtain a marriage. So why should your opinion be valued higher than mine, and why should your opinion be used to negatively affect people's lives, when allowing them to marry will cause no harm? If you think harm will be caused by allowing them to marry, please enlighten me as to which harm you believe will result. I am confident that no harm will be caused.

Do you like contributing to ruining other people's lives? How does it make you feel to know that you are contributing to causing many innocent people great upset, making them cry, helping to ensure they will never know the deep bond that they've always longed for, and they will never experience what they've always desired?

Once again, you COMPLETELY MISINTERPRET the entire thing and make up mumbojumbo as you go along. Nowhere do I say they cannot be married, just that the "marriage" should be called other than marriage. That is why in my first comment marriage is in quotation marks as it is a term, a nomen. I'll leave it at that as you completely lack the scientific knowledge to understand my standpoint.

Thief000 said,

Once again, you COMPLETELY MISINTERPRET the entire thing and make up mumbojumbo as you go along. Nowhere do I say they cannot be married, just that the "marriage" should be called other than marriage. That is why in my first comment marriage is in quotation marks as it is a term, a nomen. I'll leave it at that as you completely lack the scientific knowledge to understand my standpoint.


You clearly misunderstand what I'm saying. If you're not allowing them to officially call it a marriage, they are not married. You can't prohibit them from using the term 'marriage' but then tell them they've got married. Does doing so make you feel a little bit better, knowing that you're purposely contributing to making their lives worse? As I mention, though, you cannot reasonably do or say that. A civil partnership or a civil union is not a marriage. A marriage is a marriage. I'm not misinterpreting anything, and you know that.

I don't lack any scientific knowledge about what you're saying. I'm well aware that only a man and a woman are able to procreate the old-fashioned way. But their ability to do so and others' inability to do so should have no effect on whether any of them should be able to obtain a marriage. Any couples that consist of consenting, unrelated adults should be able to marry.

timster said,
If you don't think gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, you do have something against gay people

I don't think men should marry animals. Do I have something against animals?