At The Atlantic:

In a week of tech industry protests about censorship, one company -- Microsoft -- is lending its voice to a different political cause: gay marriage. 

It has joined with five other businesses (Vulcan, NIKE, RealNetworks, Group Health Cooperative, and Concur) to support bills that would legalize gay marriage in Washington state, where Microsoft is based. The letter to Governor Chris Gregoire was brief. In its entirety it reads, "We write you today to show the support of our respective companies for SB 6239 and HB 2516 recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples." But Microsoft elaborated on why it was supporting the bills on its official blog.

Comments

Search

laika  - Do what?   |2012-01-23 00:36:36 From the article: Quote: Add Microsoft's explanation to the list of arguments for marriage equality: Discrimination is bad for tech businesses. This is true regardless which group of people discrimination targets.Companies can't hire the best people, and the best people can't do their best work. And in the end, everybody loses. How does it follow that "companies can't hire the best people" if the government doesn't recognize someone's household arrangements? Would qualified Mormons, for instance, be better hires for MicroSoft and "do their best work" if the government recognized polygamy?

whitemice  - Do what?   |2012-01-23 06:24:57 Yea, these arguments are just non-sensical. This issue has gotten so buried in rhetoric that, like the "evolution debate", it is just hard to be interested. I used to support legalized gay marriage as a civil liberties issue [unless something clearly poses a threat to peace-and-tranquility just leave it be], but then they took up the banner of civil rights. Started calling them selves a persecuted minority. Equated sexual activity/preference with race [absurd; in a job interview how does someones sexual activity even become apparent?]. They made me switch sides. I'm all for multicultural tolerance but what they what is legally mandated acceptance.

emperorbma   |2012-01-23 09:38:01 As far as the "civil aspect" of marriage is concerned, the "gay rights" case would be a slam dunk. The government is, in fact, denying these folks equivalent protections for no rationally justifiable reason. The problem is that some of the "gay rights" lobby also want to coopt the societal and religious framework of marriage and wrest the term "marriage" despite the internal connotations that strongly argue against such equivocation. The real solution here is to fix the underlying problem: The government has no business defining marriage nor restricting who may enter it. Marriage is, and always has been, a social and religious agreement built around the basic internal component of a sexual relationship. The only reason that the government ever got involved, historically, was because it became associated with an economic contract between families. Now that this economic contract has ceased to be relevant in Western societies, some of the major impetus has been lost in the government to preserve its original format. Now, marriage is more about loving partners than about the economic aspects. However, the religious and social aspects of marriage remain and the connotations of both aspects prevent "marriage" from being a legitimately viable term for such homosexual unions. By demanding that these unions be called "marriage," the lobby is completely invalidating the legitimate points it is trying to fight for. The social side rejects it on the basis that it is not conducive to "supporting families." The religious side, naturally, rejects it as contrary to the tenets of the religious faith. This is a fact which is, by no means, is limited to Abrahamic conceptions of religion... mind you. Only fairly recently have "new religions" (read, post-1800s) actually embraced the concept of homosexual behavior. As far as the Biblical narrative is concerned, it can be by no means construed to allow for such a union owing to the fact that it is a) built around a sinful behavior (do we need refs?) and b) not actually supported by the primary Biblical definition of marriage from Genesis which is directly quoted by Jesus and c) is directly contrary to the metaphorical aspect of marriage which is intended to reflect God's relationship with humanity...

SteveGus  - re: Do what?   |2012-01-23 11:31:08 laika wrote: From the article: Quote: Add Microsoft's explanation to the list of arguments for marriage equality: Discrimination is bad for tech businesses. This is true regardless which group of people discrimination targets.Companies can't hire the best people, and the best people can't do their best work. And in the end, everybody loses. How does it follow that "companies can't hire the best people" if the government doesn't recognize someone's household arrangements? Would qualified Mormons, for instance, be better hires for MicroSoft and "do their best work" if the government recognized polygamy? The language that comes from public relations people is a greater abomination than homosexuality. I think the underlying point they're tiptoeing around here would be stated in English more like: "The smart people we're trying to attract here don't want to live in a state governed by troglodytes." The fundamental error of liberalism is that all people are created equal and entitled to equal political rights. It ain't true, but you ain't allowed to say so out loud, either.

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."