SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
San Francisco -- and the tech industry -- are beaming with Pride this weekend.
The United States Supreme Court on Friday ruled same-sex marriage a constitutional right, one day before San Francisco begins its famous Pride festivities, one of the largest celebrations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender -- aka LGBT -- culture in the country. The tech industry is practically euphoric, especially after high-profile executives this year, from Apple CEO Tim Cook to Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, publicly advocated advancing gay rights. But that advancement works both ways, said Gary Virginia, board president of SF Pride, which organizes the celebration. Speaking out is not just a personal decision for tech execs; it makes good business sense too, he said.
"They attract a younger population for their workforce, and it's been proven that social attitudes are changing," said Virginia. "So it behooves them to have progressive policies to attract LGBT employees. I think they see the benefit of it."
The celebration caps off a landmark year for the gay rights movement. In September, Apple's Cook wrote an essay saying he's gay, making him the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company. A month later, he allowed for his name to be attached to an LGBT anti-discrimination bill in his home state of Alabama. In March, Benioff said he had cancelled all Salesforce events in Indiana after its governor signed a law that would allow businesses to refuse service to anyone in the LGBT community on religious grounds. Less than a week later, dozens of executives from Airbnb, Ebay, Jawbone, Lyft, PayPal, Twitter and other companies signed a joint statement in The Washington Post against the religious freedom laws either passed or being considered in several states.
The tech industry is a relatively recent ally. LGBT leaders point out it's taken decades to achieve Friday's Supreme Court decision. New York City, for example, is commemorating the anniversary of the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Inn, which many consider the jump start of the movement. The 1978 assassination of Harvey Milk, an openly gay San Francisco board supervisor, galvanized the national LGBT community.
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday June 29 2015, @04:07PM
I had a few questions for bradley13 and yourself. I had thought that the issue was marriage, which doesn't seem to have much to do with either of your posts. Please be so kind as to help me out.
You don't talk about your wife or girlfriend at work? If you're dating, don't you talk about that around the water cooler?
Who is talking about affirmative action? Yes, gender lunatics seem to want quotas for women (which will be interesting, because this will harm
LGBT folks so keep the popcorn handy), but who has ever wanted quotas for LGBT folks?They attract a younger population for their workforce
Aren't you worried that “gay rights” is being used as a false flag to legitimize ageism here?
Also, when the SJWs come at us again screaming sexism and racism and bigotry in general, won't the revelation that the tech industry is LGBT friendly put a hole in the argument that tech is full of dudebro assholes? I mean, granted, LGBT doesn't rank as high as women and blacks in the Oppression Olympics, but doesn't that at least give us a little more to work with?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 29 2015, @04:39PM
The issues. Marriage is but part of the LGBT agenda. Probably the most important single part of their goals, in that "marriage" legitimizes everything else. The issue, as I see it, is that LGBT is a protected, special class, whose tender feelings we must never offend. You can't refuse to bake them a cake, you can't refuse to serve them for tasteless displays of affection, you can't refuse them anything. They can, and will, trample on any and all sensitivities, but cry when their own sensitivities are offended. And, it has already been demonstrated that the courts are filled with attentive, sympathetic judges, and lawyers competing to take their cases. Being gay will eventually become a near requirement for being a politician, appointee, or even to hold a government job. Guys who have never SEEN a penis aside from their own will be "coming out" in the near future.
This is not a static issue, it is a dynamic, and the gays have the initiative right now.
I could go on - but it is enough that "marriage", although an important part of their plans, is only a part of their goals.
The younger generation thing? Yes - but I can't see that becoming a real, open issue. I mean, I've been told, quite bluntly, by younger people who are either gay, or support gays, "I can't wait until your generation is dead!" Well, that will happen, soon enough. The voters and future voters who have been brainwashed in our public schools will become an ever larger percentage of the constituency.
In short, we are being socially engineered. I can see that pretty clearly, but I can't see the whole picture. The planners at the top most definitely want to move toward socialism, but at the same time, they want an elite class who owes their elite status to those planners. And, of course, those persons and groups in charge of this social engineering plan to hold the reigns of power when everything falls into place.
Don't worry about the tech industry putting any holes in the SJW's arguments. If/when anyone tries that, it's going to be much the same as we hear regarding black people today. "Well, you've historically exploited these people, so yes, of course they deserve everything they can get today!"
Nor does the presence of females damage their arguments. Remember, roughly half of any group are females - that goes across racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual lines, as well as any other lines you may care to bring up. It is safe to argue for any group's rights, and argue for women's rights at the same time, unless you are arguing for men's rights.
Let me kind of repeat myself. I can see this much, but I can't see the whole picture. We ARE being manipulated, in multiple ways. Corporations are moving wealth out of the US into other parts of the world. India, among others, is improving their education, while our own education is slipping. Tech is moving from the US to China and other Asian nations. China's military is being built up, rapidly, while our own is being weakened, often by means of corruption. (look at the F-35, billions poured into it, and not one single unit delivered)
There are issues, and related issues, and yet more related issues, all being addressed by the mysterious powers that actually rule this world. It's one huge spider web of global intrigue - and this "gay rights" issue is just a small part of it all.
And, I guaran-damn-tee that the voters don't rule this world. California, the gayest state in the nation, voted AGAINST gay marriage, and the courts decreed that the voters don't matter - the gay agenda was pushed forward by activist judges who don't answer to any voters.
So - I don't know if I've actually answered your questions, but you might look around and try to get a handle on the BIG PICTURE. Gay marriage is just one of those absurd distractions given to us to argue about, while the important decisions are handled by so-called "Trade agreement treaties".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday June 29 2015, @09:48PM
There are issues, and related issues, and yet more related issues, all being addressed by the mysterious powers that actually rule this world.
Yes! Yes! And there are known knowns, known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, to the east and the north and somewhat to the west. Seriously, Runaway, I am not sure whether you are channeling Donald Rumsfeld or Donald Trump. Or Donald Duck. Pull down your tinfoil hat extra tight, and watch the Weird Al video. Just because they are not out to get you, that is no reason to not be paranoid.
And,
The issue, as I see it, is that LGBT is a protected, special class, whose tender feelings we must never offend.
You should tell that to the families of the many LGBT persons whose "tender feelings" were bludgeoned to death. Freedom from being murdered is not usually thought of as a special right.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 29 2015, @10:02PM
"the families of the many LGBT persons whose "tender feelings" were bludgeoned to death"
I am somewhat sympathetic to those families when it comes to that kind of crap. They have the right to demand EQUALITY and EQUAL TREATMENT. They most certainly DO NOT have any right to protected status. Equality, or nothing. The moment they demand special treatment, they become my enemies, and the enemies of America. And, that is precisely what has happened with this "gay marriage" nonsense. Two or more hetero males can live together in the same home, and not seek any special consideration. Two or more females might share an apartment for decades, and not seek any special consideration. A hetero male and a hetero female might even live together for years, and not seek special consideration as a married couple.
But gays? They can't procreate, they can't even pretend that they are trying to procreate. And, they want the tax breaks that procreating couples are entitled to.
Special doesn't cut it. You're either a citizen, or you're not. There are no 1st and 2nd class citizens. Equality, and nothing more.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday June 29 2015, @10:18PM
And, they want the tax breaks that procreating couples are entitled to.
Oh! You have Breeder bias! So we force hetero couples to divorce if they don't produce? With jail time if it is by choice. And we cannot allow one infertile partner to tie up the other that could be making future soldiers for our Glorious Fuhrer! No, marriage is not about procreation, it is about recognizing a family. So denying anyone a right to marry, to form a family, without a significance public interest in doing so (recessive genetics, slavery), is inequality, discrimination, the denial of equal rights. So you are NOT really an American, Runaway. I am sure the other, real, Americans will be sad to see you go.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:57PM
If marriage was about procreation, all marriages would be immediately anulled at the onset of menopause, if a tibal ligation / vasectomy was performed, or if testicular/ovarian cancer occurred.
If its solely about procreation, then how come nobody is telling my dad he can't remarry because of his vasectomy, or that my mother can't remarry since she's post-menopausal?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:29AM
Utter nonsense. No one denied a gay the right to commit to a member of the opposite sex for the purposes of procreation. No matter how you spin it, you're arguing for a SPECIAL RIGHT for gays.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:42AM
Ah ha! See, you contradicted yourself! You are wrong! Ha! What? You don't see it? It's a blatant contradiction. . . Hm, this is going to make things difficult. Here goes:
No one denied a gay the right to commit to a member of the opposite sex for the purposes of procreation.
Fair enough. But everyone is denying a not-gay person the right to commit to a person of the same sex for purposes of whatever purposes they may see fit. Why would they want to do that? None of your business, nor of mine. Why do old people get married? Certainly not for procreation! Is it right for us to deny heterosexual old people the right to pair up with whoever they can find willing? I can see you're still worried about the gay marrying thing being mandatory, and that you will have to get all gay-married. Don't worry, it won't be that bad. You won't have any pressure to have kids!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:41AM
You are describing a formal partnership. Two or more men, two or more women, or any combination of men and women may form a partnership, just as they can form a corporation, to serve almost any purpose which they deem proper. A partnership is a legal, recognized, and honored arrangement that dates back - hell, I don't know how long it dates back. A contract is drawn up, describing the goals of the partnership, and any and all parties must abide by the terms of the contract, or face being sued in court. Not THAT much different from marriage, now is it?
Meanwhile, you continue with preposterous verbiage. Old people get married because they want to. And, some old people manage to have children. Even if they never do have children, they can at least pretend to by trying to make children. The rest of your comment gets even more preposterous.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:00AM
I feel obligated to respond to this. The one thing that continues coming up for me is the question of what the value of gay marriage is in the face of the larger situation you mention. We're looking at a total destruction of the middle class. So, sure, we can have gay marriage and legal weed, but we'll all be rotting in terrafoam dorms.
I saw clips of Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu on John Oliver's Last Week Tonight week before last. I'm thinking this online harassment issue is another link in the chains of slavery as it were. (All in all, it was all just bricks in the wall.)
I admit, I never got my copy of the gay agenda since I was training with the Chinese Amazons at the time, so I'm a bit out of sorts to discuss it. I'd like to report that my employer has been just great in regards to true equality. We had an openly gay supervisor for a while, and I believe they at least still employ half of a lesbian couple. They even considered one of my trans friends for a temporary position (she didn't get it). No special dispensation here. They all stand on their own merits. It's a practical small, but growing, business.
My thoughts (after a pint of vodka) wander to questions of why the Confederate Flag is A Thing now. I've often thought about getting a Gadsden flag bumper sticker and placing it next to a rainbow flag bumper sticker just for the sheer divide by zero that would cause.
John Titor, a time traveller from an alternate timeline where nuclear war breaks out in 2015 (at this point I don't think that'll happen in this timeline—martial law hasn't been established [yet], which had been since 2013 iirc in Titor's timeline), reported that in 2026, America had become closer to Jefferson's ideal agrarian republic.
I'd like to argue that homosexual and trans folks have a place in a Jeffersonian agrarian republic and even as a valuable and natural part of the family. Let's rethink this whole gay marriage thing. Perhaps it's a mistake. Granted, I have an enchantment that makes me biologically 100% female—I'm just lazy about paperwork (a foreign concept to Amazon tradition), so may the readers feel free to flame me. I'd go so far as to say the nuclear family is a mistake. The extended family is more natural, and that's where homosexuals and trans folks come in.
One might invoke Card's vision of marriage, but I think that's wrong. Procreation need not be the absolute goal or absolute measure of a person. Rather, we should move into more of a model of community that Titor reported. Home education, extended family, community, openness, and what struck me most, turning off the TV to talk about things and pass on stories with the family and community.
Think about creepypasta. This used to be something that was passed on by word of mouth by a campfire (see Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, Schwartz). Now we have Hollywood hollow creepypasta. Really, Evil Dead is the only real creepy story Hollywood has to offer, and that's barely Hollywood!
We need to find a new democratized way to realize the Jeffersonian vision of a republic in an age that is most certainly not agrarian.
Project Australia? I've been wondering if it's time to do an IPO for such a thing. More meditation is required for concepts such as the refs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @05:23PM
It's a variation of the availability heuristic. Because comments affirming heterosexuality are so commonplace, many don't appreciate how much heteros shove their sexuality into others' faces. Since comments affirming homosexuality are rarer, they stand out more. When it was first brought to my attention, I was stunned at how much I did to shove my heterosexuality into people's faces.
(Score: 2) by kadal on Monday June 29 2015, @08:01PM
Example?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday June 29 2015, @08:51PM
Exactly what I asked about above. It's quite normal to hear about somebody's significant other at work, and this is perfectly fine. What I wanted to figure out was whether a homosexual man similarly talking about his boyfriend (or now potentially husband) was somehow special. I think after reading Runaway1956's response, a homosexual man talking about his significant other at work is not the issue here; it seems to be more PDAs¹, which I can see being annoying no matter what sexual orientations or genders are involved.
(I'm still digesting the comment.)
GP is pointing out that once one removes oneself from a heteronormative frame, one notices how frequently heterosexuals talk about their love life. There is nothing wrong with this; it's simply notable, as in note it as interesting, then move on.
¹ Public display of affection.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:03AM
The 8 company anniversary dinners we attended together.
The picture of her I have for my desktop wallpaper.
Keep in mind this was first pointed out to me before gay marriage was legal, so some of these are iffier now, but were red flags when I said them
"I can't stay late, I'm having dinner with my in-laws"
"I'm going to go see a movie with my wife"
"I don't watch much TV. My wife is very particular about which show she sleeps through."
"I need to take some bereavement leave to attend my father-in-law's funeral."
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:28AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈