The heated topic was in regards to Eastman Kodak.
In any case, Eastman Kodak sent out a company wide e-mail memo announcing "comming out" day...An employee, a millwright I believe, replied with a e-mail of his own, that was widely distributed.
In any case, the employee basically said that he found the memo offensive and was promptly terminated.
Kudos to this employee for standing up! The workplace is just that...one is being paid to provide a service to the employeer. The workplace is not a forum for political, social, religious, sexual views etc!
Apparently the employee who was fired was a mid-level manager who criticized (and thus rebuked) Kodak's human resources policies regarding "acceptance of diversity" among the employees who reported to him. Anyone who manages people for a large company knows exactly how sensitive this diversity thing is and how seriously companies have to take the issue. You can't be managing people and publicly state you are anti-gay and not expect to be targeted for "diversity training" or worse. This guy didn't just complain to his manager either -- he emailed 1000 Kodak employees. Dumb.
Should make an interesting court case...
As a religious minority that has seen his share of discrimination, I am personally AGAINST affirmative action! Acceptance to college, being hired into a position and promotions should be based on ones own mertis and ability ONLY!
I remember a few years ago a case in Texas. A white female, who was at the top of her class, was denied admittance into college (law school I believe) because whe was white. Instead, African Americans, who maintained lower academic standards than this woman, were admitted simply because of the color of their skin. The woman sued and I believe, won. This was a well publicized case a few years back.
When I was in the USAF, we had several homosexuals who "came out of the closet". The problem was that they tried to force themselves onto "straight" servicemen. The result was some well deserved violence directed at the homosexuals prior to their discharges!
The workplace is just that...where you go to perform a specific service for a given salary...and not a political forum for personal issues!
Oh, and having Jerry Fallwell comment about it does NOT help that side of the case!
------------------
Better Projection Pays!
<<One of Kodak's Values is "Respect for the Individual", which includes Diversity. At a recent conference, Kodak's CEO Dan Carp said: "Our strength as a company is evidenced by our number of diverse people from all over the globe. and from all walks of life. By the company's commitment - and my own personal commitment to living our values, we are creating an environment where every individual feels part of the team and is encouraged to contribute to their fullest potential.">>
These values are reflected in the company's response to the action it took toward Mr Szabo:
<<“Mr. Szabo was not -- I repeat, not -- dismissed for holding a particular opinion, and he could have expressed it to supervisors or to human resources without negative consequence,” Gerard Meuchner said. “Instead, he sent his message to other people in his department -- about 1,000 people -- and in the company’s view, this act created the potential for a hostile work environment.”
Meuchner said Szabo was told “that the company did not wish to dismiss him but merely to counsel him about why his conduct was inappropriate. He was not asked to admit his opinions were wrong but to acknowledge that the way in which he communicated them to about 1,000 people was inappropriate. He refused to create and sign documentation to this effect, despite repeated requests, knowing that his refusal would result in his dismissal.”
He added that Szabo “has the right to appeal his dismissal with an employee-based dispute resolution panel.”
Rochester’s largest employer has regularly been recognized as one of the best places to work for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.>>
Political correctness can run amok though. The City of Eugene often requires job applicants to respond in writing to this question:
quote:
Discuss how you have contributed toward a positive and productive environment in a culturally diverse workplace.
Having to answer that question on a job application infuriates me!! Unless you're a blithering idiot, the only correct response is something very PC and bland like "I enjoy working with all people and I treat everyone equally, as I expect to be treated". DUH!!?? And if you ARE bigoted, are you going to say anything offensive in your reply? What a dumb-ass question. It's pointless.
quote:
The workplace is just that...one is being paid to provide a service to the employeer. The workplace is not a forum for political, social, religious, sexual views etc!
Well, if that is the way you want it, there should be NONE of the following at work:
religious jewelry, wedding rings, pictures on desks, and definately no "what did you do this weekend" or "how is the family" type discussions. This would be the only way to bring about the work environment you advocate, short of getting robots to do the job.
also
quote:
....The result was some well deserved violence directed at the homosexuals prior to their discharges!
Danny
cheers Peter
I too, am fed up with people claming that some aspect of their personal life should entitle them to preferential treatment in the workplace. One of the most blatent cases of it I came across was in a short-lived job about 6 years ago. The chief projectionist left shortly after I started, and was replaced by someone who flatly refused to work evenings and weekends (no negotiation) on the grounds that she had a baby son, with the result that I suddenly found myself doing 7 nights a week. When I raised this with the manager I was told to 'show respect' to the needs of women staff. I'm sorry, working in the evenings comes with being a projectionist - it's part of the job. If you can't deal with that, find another line of work (that's one of the reasons I eventually did).
I agree that this bloke at Kodak made a pretty serious error of judgement by expressing his views so crudely and in writing, but I can't help sympathising with his reaction. After all, anyone who asserted they had rights on the grounds that they were white, male and heterosexual would instantly be branded a fascist.
Maybe the Kodak incident could have been avoided with a company policy specifying that discriminations of all kinds won't be tolerated, rather than focusing on making things better for a specific group (unless Kodak wants to favor a specific group, which I think is also the right of any private company).
On all workplaces I've been, I just refrained from talking about politics, or never talk to somebody about the fact that he/she was gay/Muslim/handicapped or whatever. I just regarded everyone as colleagues, full stop. And, provided they did a good job within the team, there has never been a problem and I always had excellent relations with everybody.
I wholeheartedly concur with the actions of Eastman Kodak in dismissing an obviously distraught individual. The mere fact that he emailed 1000 individuals is proof enough that he has more pressing stress that he is not dealing with. The mere refusal to even admit that he may have acted inappropriately shows that he is not the type of open minded people that make up the wonderful atmosphere felt by my fellow constituents at Kodak.
I however am very concerned that Kodak would terminate a person for such minimal offences. The very fact that they fired him for refusing to apologize is silly. They should all be sent to jail for getting millions of dollars in Enron style tax breaks."""
Making sure I have both sides of the coin.
Dave
quote:
The workplace is not a forum for political, social, religious, sexual views etc!
-I can understand this comment, but in my experience, people that say this sort of thing ONLY say it when they hear something that they do not agree with. (I'm not directing that at Will, but I've heard statements like that in the past)
Will also said:
quote:
Things like political correctness and affirmative action have run amok!
In theory, affirmative action is a terrible thing, but there are so many people in power that are racist and/or sexist, that it is a necessary evil. It's sad but true, in my opinion. Unfortunately, no one has been able to put a better system in place. I would love to think that all races, sexes, etc. would be treated equally without it, but in many workplaces, that would not be the case.
Dave Williams said:
quote:
I however am very concerned that Kodak would terminate a person for such minimal offences.
It's not completely clear that that was the case. Perhaps there was a history there that contributed to the decision. Who knows?
I assume that Kodak was only trying to foster an environemnt in which people of all sexual orientations feel welcome, and for that, I applaud them. I don't see any sort of preferential treatment at work here, at least not in the information provided in here and in the link that David provided. I don't know if I would have dismissed the worker based on this incident only, but clearly what he did was wrong. He was upset for receiving a "political" email, and then basically proceeded to send a "political" email to 1000 other employees. It was a terrible way to handle the situation.
I may have not read the entire incident completely but if this guy's email is constantly flooded with PC propiganda then that is inappropriate as well. Perhaps he felt emailing 1000 coworkers was an "equal time" sort of thing. One thing is for sure, he got more attention to the matter in the manner he chose rather than just whispering to his supervisor. If he didn't like his workplace, possibly mainly due to such items, then he probably is better off not working there and decided to leave in a blaze.
I have a feeling that neither side is squeeky clean on it but I can't think of any company that is perfect nor any perfect employees.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
quote:
Is this why so many Eastman Kodak prints have gone pink?
Peter, that's bad! But a funny one! Haha! 
Or haven't you noticed the improvements made over 20 years ago?
quote:
When I was in the USAF, we had several homosexuals who "came out of the closet". The problem was that they tried to force themselves onto "straight" servicemen. The result was some well deserved violence directed at the homosexuals prior to their discharges!
Well deserved? For making a pass at someone, even if they didn't like it? Would Will still feel it was okay if that was the net result of his making an unwelcome pass at some woman?
It's all too recent (1992) that some of our fine boys in uniform felt the same way:
quote:
Yokosuka, Japan: Airman Apprentice Terry M. Helvey was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of [Navy Petty Officer]Allen Schindler in a public restroom in Sasebo, Japan. Schindler, who was homosexual, was so badly beaten that the Navy pathologist described his injuries as "more consistent with a high-speed automobile accident or lo-speed airplane crash. " Schindler's liver "contained holes that allowed him (the pathologist) to see straight through it."
Will, if you meant what you said, I find it very sad indeed.
Sorry I did not make that clear.
However, I personally feel that this forum is going to quickly get out of hand. I suggest that we either make nice quickly or Brad should shut this particular one down.
We have worked too hard to become professional associates to have that ruined by very strong personal feelings that are coming out on this one.
Dave
The civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the Second Vatican Council, the War on Poverty, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, the Anti-Defamation League the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and other societal movements of our times, have increased public counciousness for the tolerence of diversity and respect for individuals. This tolerence is now expressed in laws, especially in New York City and state, forbidding economic discrimination, or permitting a hostile workplace environment causing physical or psychological harm to an individual .
I applaud Eastman Kodak for its pro-active commitment to respect for individual differences and its attempts to create a healthy, smoke-free, discrimination-free and hate-free work environment. And for having the good sense to realize that their policy will not only benefit their personnel, but increase the conpany's leadership standing, and save them millions in lawsuits filed by the agrieved
workers in less enlightened corporations.
Gerard
quote:
That's bad, but not funny.
Or haven't you noticed the improvements made over 20 years ago?
Oops I think I have hit a raw nerve. Memo to self: Don't mention Eastman Kodak prints going pink, red or any other color!
It's not P.C. (Photographically Correct)
cheers Peter
ps Yes I'm aware of the improvements Kodak have made John but there are a lot of Eastman Kodak Pink films from earlier years for sale.
All I can say is "well said." Too many people think that because discrimination doesn't happen to them, it doesn't happen at all and is in the mind of the victim. I think we as decent humans should sometimes step outside our box and try to see the world the way others do. It helps facicilate a more open, understanding and accepting society.
quote:
Well deserved? For making a pass at someone, even if they didn't like it? Would Will still feel it was okay if that was the net result of his making an unwelcome pass at some woman?
In the context of a workplace, if a woman complained that a man had made an unwelcome pass at her, the man would at the very least be severely disciplined, and possibly sacked. If a man complained that another man had made a pass at him, the victim would probably be accused of homophobia and dealt with like he was the offender. There have been several constructive dismissal cases in the UK in recent years resulting from this happening. Sexual violence and harassment should not be tolerated by or from anyone, whatever their orientation, but in my experience that isn't what happens in the real world.
quote:
FWIW, my e-mail is NOT "flooded with PC propaganda".
I think this raises a broader point, which is that coprorate e-mail systems within large organisations make it very easy for you to send messages to colleagues which they really don't need. My work is based in a university (3,000 staff approx.) and only today I had a message informing me of a vacancy for a senior lecturer in criminology, and another stating that a building I never use will be closed for three hours next week to test the fire alarm. I strongly suspect that this is how the man at Kodak got himself into trouble. It was just too easy to fire off a message to 'Department X, all staff' without thinking that it will be read by 1,000 different people, all of whom will react differently.
quote:
Yes I'm aware of the improvements Kodak have made John but there are a lot of Eastman Kodak Pink films from earlier years for sale.
...and a lot of pink original and intermediate elements (not just Eastman but Agfa, Ansco and Eastern Bloc stocks too) which are proving difficult or impossible for archivists to restore. Just because film stock manufacturers think they have the dye stability issue sorted now dosen't take away the fact that there is still a legacy problem.
I think I can comment authoritatively here. Look at my picture. I get fat jokes all the time - I have since I was in middle school. But I laugh right along with them, because:
A) I don't take myself that seriously.
B) They are based in truth, which makes them funny.
C) Some have been funny as hell.
Am I discriminated against -- have I been passed over for jobs or promotions because I'm fat? Probably. Do people judge me to behave in a way that is inconsistent with my actual personality or habits? Definitely. Tough luck. Any choice is discrimination, but that is what I consider freedom of association. If someone doesn't like me, for whatever reason, that's the last person I would want to force to be friendly with me.
We all want to be liked and accepted by everyone, but that's not the way it is in life. If the bleeding hearts think they're going to get into people's heads and change the way they think, to arrive at some sort of touchy-feely utopia -- it ain't gonna happen.
The truth hurts, boys and girls. To some, it hurts a little too much. To them, I say watch some John Wayne movies and get a backbone!
- Someone who knows all about sinking or swimming.
Years ago my grandmother was traveling with her 9 month old daughter (my mother). She was refused room after room after room. She had to sleep in her car in the freezing cold. Her husband was serving in the Navy off of the sea of Japan.
You see, my family is Italian. Many times, we are mistaken for Blacks Or Mexicans. What kind of backbone is appropriate here? Her husband was a decorated officer in the Navy, yet was refused a room to sleep in to get her and her baby out of the cold.
I am frequently pulled over by police. I am often mistaken for Mexican or even sometimes Middle Eastern persuasion. Three times in the last ten years I have been forced to the ground and cuffed. NOT for doing anything wrong, but for only looking like I might be a criminal. I have never been convicted of anything. My only guilt is that I have a darker skin coler than most swedish people.
Intolerance is not always easy to roll with. Sometimes it results in basic constitutional civil rights being violated, and sometimes results in violence, civil unrest, and even death.
I applaud anyone who can deal with it when it is directed at them. However, it is still inappropriate.
Dave
Mary and Joseph were denied room at the inn. That will continue to happen. You have to deal with it.
Incidentally, there are not degrees of backbone. You either have it, or you don't. I can't transmute it to you, but John Wayne helps.
------------------
Better Projection Pays!
How does a policy of "creating an environment where every individual feels part of the team and is encouraged to contribute to their fullest potential" turn into an invitation to become gay? IMHO, you don't "become" gay --- you either are or you aren't. All I'm being asked to do is to respect those who might be different from me, which is my moral upbringing anyway.
If that isn't an invitation to join the ranks, I don't know what is.
I've known and worked with about 30 - 40 gay people during my career. By and large, one of the things they actively do is try to recruit new people -- whether it's a choice or not. Getting people to "come out" is definitely on their agenda.
This is not discrimination, it's observation.
Regardless of the picture of moral innocence and ambiguity the gay activists have painted for the public over the past 20 years, maybe the question should be put to you: how can a company actively promote something like a "coming out day", and not be looked upon as if encouraging it?
Obviously, the company isn't interested in making people who morally oppose or find this behavior offensive feel welcome, accepted, or "a part of the team".
I have known, worked with, been friends with and interacted with many gay people, and I have never seen nor heard of any recruiting. I mean no offense to you personally, but I think that you are grossly misinformed about the gay community and homosexuality in general.
In basic training, like in prison, the basic trainees take very quick group showers. God how everyone hated those! You get filthy and have less than 10 minutes to shower...so no one pays attention to anyone else...unless one is a homosexual who wants to get seriously hurt! And we had just that...a homosexual who tried to use his sord on someone in the shower. Needless to say that the homosexual recieved a pretty good blanket party (having the living crap beat out of him) and then was discharged with a record!
This incident happened at Norton AFB, CA in the early 1990's. Unknown to everyone, we had a homosexual living in our barraks. Basically, this person was already in trouble for homosexuality and drug abuse. (This was before the don't ask, don't tell policy...homosexuality was punishable under the U.C.M.J.) The charges against this person were dropped because he turned snitch in a major drug case. So with charges being dropped, he given quarters in our barraks and no one knew he was queer, until....
One night, while I was in my room, this homosexual comes stumbling in my room. I figured it was just another drunk Airman, thought nothing of it, and threw him out. I did not know the guy at all. The following night I had just come home from work, was eating dinner and doing laundry when my neighbor, who shall remain nameless, came running down the hallway in his nightcloths. I did not know what was going on, but my neighbor yelled at me to guard the homosexual while he got the C.Q. and S.P.s. Turns out that the homosexual's room key was also a master key for the barraks. Anyhow, my nameless neighbor was sleeping in his room to wake up and find the homosexual standing over him in his birthday suite spanking his monkey! The queer used his master key to gain admittance into both my, and my neighbor's rooms.
You can say that there was some violence directed towards the homosexual, and the powers to be had to put him under protective custody at March AFB.
Heterosexuals / caucasians / Catholics / Americans / red-necks / Evangelicals / men / women / politicians / etc. (insert favorite local majority) do not hold a monopoly on virtue and goodness.
quote:
I mean no offense to you personally, but I think that you are grossly misinformed about the gay community and homosexuality in general.
Dear Joe:
None taken, thank you.
If, by misinformed, you mean believing the activist's rhetoric, who wish nothing more than to advance their agenda, then no thanks, I will remain blissfully ignorant. I'm only going by what I've experienced over several years, dealing with many gay people. I've worked with them, hung around with them, and even roomed with one, and I stand by my contention that they indeed want more gay people in the world.
Not only are they regularly in "recruit" mode, they want everyone to be happy about it, skipping around saying things like, "I'm gay! I'm gay!" I don't go around shouting, "I'm straight! I'm straight!". Some of my gay friends have told me, however, these things are often done to agitate people.
They also call each other all those names we're told are offensive to them. That is the height of hypocrisy.
I have nothing whatsoever against what anyone chooses to do with their life, who they are, what they do in their bedroom, or who they decide to become. Great, I'm happy they're happy. Just don't force it on everyone, especially those who find it on morally objectionable ground.
quote:
(insert favorite local majority) do not hold a monopoly on virtue and goodness.
No one has said this, John. We're talking about forcing morally objectionable views on the populace.
"...some well deserved violence directed at the homosexuals..." is justified?
Look into your hearts. "Shame, shame on you." 
I took the memo mentioned in the article to be a note to management-level staff that basically said, "Hey, this day is coming up and you might have to deal with it. Here's how the company is prepared to help you." If it was anything more than that, then I say that Kodak stepped over the line. As an employee, my employer can stay the hell out of my personal life.
It was stupid and wrong of this guy to fire off an email to anyone other than his supervisor, and his refusal to accept that deserves termination. Regardless of what the memo was about.
Considering the problems encountered by just being gay, ranging from mild and legal discrimination to outright murder, I just cannot imagine what enticement such recruiters would use to get a hetero to go against their own nature and switch teams. Toaster oven? Must be a nice one!
quote:
RESPECTING others is morally objectionable?
How do you figure they are respecting others? By endorsing a "coming out day", they are encouraging behavior that is specifically against moral codes outlined by various faiths.* That is NOT respecting everyone -- only the politically-correct. In fact, it's leaving quite a large segment of the population out of the equation.
I realize you're being the company man, but I also believe you know what at least one faith has to say about this kind of behavior.
Try as you might, call it what you will, there is no rationalization for these activities.
* Btw, I've yet to know of ANY faith that prohibited the actions of black people, where did you get that?
In fact, any true believer in christ would not be offended. In fact they would be sympathetic, understanding, and loving.
My own religeon, the Mormons, up until about 25 odd years ago refused to allow black people to hold the priesthood or any position of authority or instruction. Why our family joined I just don't know. We were always taken for some ethnic minority and treated as such. Hey I guess we were. Bieng Italian, or if you prefer, a WOP, Ginnie, Greaseball, whatever the hell you want to call me, I will just put it on my backbone.
The true problem here is that this is the United States of America. We are not perfect, but our constitution grants that we are all created equal, and deserve to be treated equally by each other. Pinpointing why someone else is damaged in your own opinion, based on whatever you want to base it on, and therefore not granted the same basic civil rights, is not a part of what this country is supposed to be about.
There is a separation of Church and State here in the USA. It provides that this government cannot respect any establishment of religeon, nor can it prevent the engagement of it. However, no church can reign in power in this country. No dogma can be adopted, nor can a pre defined set of mores be placed into law.
there can be however a community list of values, but never should they be religeously influenced. To say that just because the majority is, is to say that a single person should be forced to surrender thier basic human rights of existence or die at the hands of a mob.
You may find this rediculous. It is not. Read our history. Intolerance causes hate. Hate causes fear. Fear causes irrational thought. Irrational thought leads to violation of the very morals that people of the religeous sects claim to uphold.
More violence and death in the history of this planet has been attributed in the name of God. Trust me, God doesn't want that.
Dave
Slavery was condoned by God in the Old Testament and Christianity continued to support the idea in the New Testament:
If you had said "religiously objectionable" I would have gotten your point, which I happen to disagree with.
Romans 14:10-19
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
... For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
I hate religious discussions. You have your morals and I have mine.
quote:
How do you figure they are respecting others? By endorsing a "coming out day", they are encouraging behavior that is specifically against moral codes outlined by various faiths.* That is NOT respecting everyone -- only the politically-correct. In fact, it's leaving quite a large segment of the population out of the equation.
Hmm... I don't think they're encouraging the behaviour as such - as John pointed out, either you're gay or not. But what they certainly are encouraging is to bring that behaviour into the workplace, which is another thing altogether.
And the religion issue is just one reason why doing that is very problematic. The most obvious example of this at present is Islam - the Koran specifically calls for physical torture, mutilation and the death penalty for acts which are not even a criminal offence in Western countries, e.g. sexual intercourse outside marriage. So on the one hand you have politically correct morons like Blair telling us to respect Islam and that all Muslims aren't terrorists, yet on the other there are Muslim citizens of the United Kingdom who, in all seriousness, are working to impose a legal code that would result in two of my closest friends being stoned to death for sleeping with their partners. Yet anyone who says that these extremists are wrong is liable to be branded a racist and an Islamophobe.
What this boils down to is that there are no such things as 'rights' on their own. Every right carries with it a responsibility. If you have the right not to be murdered, you also have the responsibility not to murder anyone. If you have the right not to be persecuted because you're gay, you also have the responsibility not to persecute anyone because they hold a moral belief that homosexuality is wrong (unless of course they manifest that belief in the form of persecution against you). And if you have the right to observe your religious beliefs, you also have the responsibility not to impose them on people who do not hold those beliefs.
IMHO, celebrating a 'coming out day' within a corporate environment fails to strike the balance between those rights and responsibilities. It accords rights to one minority group, but fails in the parallel responsibility toward others.
Let me postulate a question and you may use slavery as the example if you wish but I think it has broader application than that.
The question is - what should a man do when forced to choose between what he truly knows in his heart to be right and what is written in the scriptures of the religeon he subscribes to? Although the Bible has various scriptures that could be interpreted as condoning slavery I do not believe that I could ever support slavery in any form.
To me the above illustrates the problem with fundamentalism of any kind. By that I mean choosing to follow the literal word of a religeous text rather than recognising that any text written by man, even one inspired by God, could be flawed by the shortcomings of the writer. To me many fundamentalists delight in using religeous text out of context to justify points of view sometimes founded in hatred, self-interest or fear.
I much prefer an approach which is exemplified by the following page
here
namely
"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."(2Corinthians 3:5-6)
To put it another way given the choice between what is right and what is written in text, right should win out. Further in reading religeous texts such as the Bible I believe that one should seek to ascertain the moral principles being enunciated in the text (the spirit of the law) and put these into practice rather than seek to be shackled by the the strict letter of biblical text which is just another way of creating a new law for oneself to be imprisoned by as many fundamentalists seem to do. Beware of pharisees!
As far as homosexuality goes I admit to finding the whole subject difficult to work out. But I know in my heart this much - that any interpretation of scripture that would cause me to hate someone, gay or straight, isn't worth the paper it is written on. God may well disapprove of such behavoir but that is a matter between God and the individual to be sorted out. Only when an individual causes some harm to another, or threatens to in connection with their beliefs need it concern me. In the meantime I'm happy to cut enough slack to individuals who aren't straight so that they can get on with their lives and do some good in the community rather than be victimized in the name of a particular God which is in itself a great evil.
In terms of the workplace issue I must admit to having some difficulty with the idea of mixing personal issues with the workplace. The workplace is a place to do work. It reminds me a bit of the rule about not mixing personal and business matters. Doing so just creates problems. I favour the view that one comes to work to do a particular job and that if one's views, right or wrong, political, religeous or otherwise are going to interfere with the smooth running of the enterprise then, in deference to the employer who has paid you to get a job done, one should leave such views at the door and pick them up again after work on your way home. An employer should likewise not bring personal issues into the workplace.
That's my best shot at an answer to this problem but I freely admit to not having all the answers and I defer to those wiser than myself.
cheers Peter
I'd say that the idea just plays into the hands of the homophobes, sending the message that they've got to grit their teeth and put up with it for one day a year, but that the rest of the time it's quite alright to behave in as bigoted a way as they like.
An interesting comparison would be 'national no-smoking day' in Britain. A newspaper later reported that sales of tobacco went up by 77% in the day after it compared to the day before it. This suggests that a great many smokers strugged through the day without a fag, and then puffed their way through double the usual intake the next day, thus making the whole exercise somewhat pointless.
quote:
Well if that's the function of a 'coming out day', then surely it's an admission of defeat? Let's say, for example, that a gay colleague asked if he could leave work an hour early because he was going to the cinema with his partner. Surely he should be able to ask that question without fear of a prejudiced reply at any time, not just on one day a year?
It doesn't mean that people have to be tolerant one day out of the year, but if a company, like Kodak, sends out an email "endorsing" the day, that lets people know that the company is accepting and supportive of their employees regardless of their sexuality. Having a day dedicated to coming out merely gives people an occasion to show their support. The problem is that because of a long history of discrimination in many places, many people do not know if they can "ask that question without fear of a prejudiced reply at any time."
National Fire Prevention Week doesn't mean that the other 51 weeks of the year we run around willy-nilly with matches and gasoline.
And there is still no proof that Kodak is "sponsoring" this event. As far as I can tell, they are only acknowledging that it exists and are providing support for their staff who may be in a supervisory position to understand the situation and guide them in a company-accepted method of handling the situation. Companies provide training seminars for all sorts of management-type situations all the time, be it dealing with irate customers or "sensitivity" training.
Peter mentioned
quote:
The question is - what should a man do when forced to choose between what he truly knows in his heart to be right and what is written in the scriptures of the religeon he subscribes to?
Exactly. There are many instances in religious text where the laws of the time just don't apply any more. But, since it's in the Bible (or whatever text), does that mean that the following still apply:
.....................................................................
KODAK VALUES
At Kodak, we conduct ourselves according to six corporate values. These values define who we are, and how we act toward each other, our customers, our shareholders, and all of our publics. It is important that everyone understand our values so we can work together as one worldwide company as we navigate today's increasingly tough, competitive marketplace.
1. Respect for the Dignity of the Individual
We cannot operate effectively unless each of us is able to treat everyone else with appropriate respect. This essential value is at the heart of our culture and will help us focus on many important issues like diversity of our workforce.
2. Integrity
In today's increasingly complex business and social world, integrity and honesty must be the hallmarks of any organization or person striving to consistently achieve and maintain the respect of our publics.
3. Trust
We must be able to work in an environment in which we trust each other. We must depend upon and trust our colleagues to do their assigned tasks without the need to check and recheck their work. Likewise, each of us must handle our responsibilities so that our colleagues can trust we are doing our part.
4. Credibility
Each of us must earn credibility with others inside and outside the company. Certainly, the company as a whole must strive for the highest credibility with all its external publics. We must commit to do what we say we will do, and no later than we commit to do it.
5. Continuous Improvement and Personal Renewal
Results do count, and continuous improvement toward world-class levels is essential to achieve credibility with our publics. We must each continually improve ourselves and renew our skill sets. Training and education must be accepted as a common responsibility between us - as employees - and the company as a whole.
6. Recognition and Celebration
We will search out and welcome opportunities to openly celebrate the achievements of others and congratulate individuals, teams, employees, suppliers and customers for delivering results that contribute to Kodak success. Recognition and celebration will be an integral part of our everyday work activity.
Home | Search | Service & Support
Copyright © Eastman Kodak Company, 1994-2000 and Privacy Practices.
......................................................................
I plan to give a copy to my young pediatric office trainee, as she plans to attend leadership training courses in Washington and New York, as part of her preparation for standing for election as Class President. She may wish to share this expression with others, of course with attribution.
Frankly, I don't see how any Film-tech reader, especially those in management, could quarrel with the aims expressed above.
Gerard
quote:
I took "morally" to mean in the opinion of a society as a whole. A man might lose his faith but not his morality.
Dear Adam, man cannot define morality, neither can society. Morality is related to the Creator, the universal source of all that is good. It is He who defines the difference between right and wrong, in His book for living, The Holy Bible. The faithful also hold that the Bible is divinely inspired and is the unerrant word of God.
The Bible says if a man lays with another man, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. That sounds like a pretty severe transgression. I don't know that the Bible commands us to hate anyone. Likewise, I don't know that it tells us to judge anyone -- only God can do that. We are, however, supposed to shun things like homosexuality. "Hate the sin, love the sinner."
I think Leo makes an excellent point regarding rights and the responsibilities that go with them. You're a very clear thinker, sir!
If you are saying that we should respect and value others, even if they are different than us and don't share our beliefs, we are on the same page. Tolerance and open-mindedness don't corrupt, they enrich.
quote:
man cannot define morality, neither can society.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. Morals can and are defined by man and society. Our religious beliefs can help reinforce those morals, but so do our own internal and societal directives. As one pointed out, it was once considered moral and God-given to hold slaves, for example. Yet I highly doubt most religious people would find that acceptable today. Interracial marriage was seen as an abomination before God by a number of religious followers. Few (hopefully) see that today.
It has been my experience that some people do indeed pick and choose Biblical passages to match their prejudices and conveniently reject other passages that do not reflect their views. As for me, I look for the underlining meaning behind the texts of the holy books I was raised with to apply to my modern day life.
I'm also sorry this has gotten into a religious discusion. There was another thread that pertained to our religious beliefs that stayed mostly above the fray. Unfortunately, the same can't be said here.
Homosexuals do become violent when someone does not agree with their lifestyle! And yes, they do try to press their agenda!
After my discharge from the USAF and while living in my first apartment, a gay neighbor of mine made several passes at me. Twice I told him point blank that I am not gay and am not interested. The third time he came around I presented him with a weapon and explained to him exactly what would happen if he tried to approach me again. He got the message!
On a recent overnight cinema service call, the gay theater owner/manager made passes. I tried to politely tell him that I am not gay or interested and that I was there on professional business only! He did not take the message and persisted. I then told him what I thought of his sick shit and we parted company. I have not been paied for services rendered.
I was recently invloved with a community fundraiser for the restoration of an important historical site. One of the people in charge of the event is VERY VERY openly gay. Anyhow, he had too much alcohol and his gay related obnixious behavior really pissed off many people!
About a year ago I had to take my Mom to the hospital emerengcy room. The patient next to my Mom was gay and was in the E.R. for AIDS related problems. Two of this patients gay friends accompanied him to the e.r. Can you believe that these two were getting it on in the e.r.!
A nurse friend of mine is an emerengcy room nurse. A few years ago they had a rash of homosexuals comming into the e.r. in the middle of the night for gerble extraction! Thats right, they were getting off by shoving gerbiles up each others backsides alive and head-first!
I also have a gay relative, and his obnixious behavior really disgusts me!
As far as gay militancy. A few years ago, gay activitists forced Congressman Jim Kolbe of AZ to come out of the closet and to promote the gay agenda. Many people knew for many years that Kolbe is gay, but he is respected because he kept his personal life personal. Once again, gay activists forced him to "come out of the closet"!
When it comes to the workplace, I judge a fellow employee or subordinate by his or her own merits only! I expect that person to be prepared and on time; willing to put in an honest days work and exhibit pride, professionalism, honesty and integrity. If gays can promote their agenda in the workplace, then straight people should be allowed to do the same! WHATS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER!
I am not the most religious of people, but pratically speaking I see the Bible as a Book of Life and how peoples decisions effected them for better or for worse. The bottom line is that the purpose of sex is to reproduce with that one person you love and wish to spend the rest of your life with. But what guy wouldn't want to be sandwiched between two Penthouse Pets 
! Anyhow, the fact is that many of the diseases that we have today are the direct result of sexual irresponisbility. And homosexuality is definately sexual irresponsibility! After all, God created Adam and Eve, NOT ADAM and STEVE!
quote:
Homosexuals do become violent when someone does not agree with their lifestyle! And yes, they do try to press their agenda!
This is the biggest bunch of b.s. I've ever heard (and I'm not gay). Someone who feels the need to rant and be so paranoid about gays makes me think that they must be very insecure about their own sexuality.
I live in New York City and have worked in industries which happen to employ many gay men (library market, publishing, media) and I have NEVER been harassed or sexually approached by any gay man in any regard. And when you say, "they do try to press their agenda," if that means that gay men fight for equal rights for gays - so what? If you mean that they try to get straights to become gay, as implied in an earlier post, I've never heard of anything so ridiculous. Do you really think that there aren't enough gay men to go around so gay men try to get hetrosexual men to convert?
Different strokes for different folks. Get over it.
No disrespect here, but what a pile of Sh*t you are shoveling here. The fact that you would even entertain the validity of that hoary old gerbil urban myth story makes me question all your other "assertions" of all these gay men hitting on you. Do you really believe all gay men you come into contact with are "lusting" after you? I can believe one, maybe two incidents of inappropriate behavior, but most gays would never be so bold to try and hit up on straight men. Especially with all the reports of violence and intolerance society shows them. This type of propaganda was used in Hitler's Germany to demean and marginalize those of Jewish descent. Think about that when you adopt those tactics for your inner hatred towards those who are different than you.
Let's see, are you servicing a gay theatre, or are implying the theatre owner is gay? Did this pass really take place, or is it possible your intense homophobia made you inmagine it? You called a customer a sack of shit and are surprised he didn't pay you?
Let's see. Someone had too much alcohol and made an ass of himself? I've seen that in MANY people who had too much to drink, straight OR gay.
quote:
man cannot define morality, neither can society. Morality is related to the Creator, the universal source of all that is good.
Adam responds with a slightly paraphrased quote from Tim ...
quote:
Great, I'm happy [you're] happy. Just don't force it on everyone
Will said ...
quote:
Homosexuals do become violent when someone does not agree with their lifestyle!
and then he followed up with ...
quote:
The third time he came around I presented him with a weapon and explained to him exactly what would happen if he tried to approach me again.
Do I even need to point out the irony in this story?
quote:
He got the message!
And so do I. The idea of homosexuality disgusts and offends you.
Do you know what disgusts me? People who lash out with intolerance and hatred when something offends them. And Asian food.
It is not to 'recruit' straight people into becoming gay (which is not possible) but for those who are gay. To allow those who have yet to "come out of the closet" a chance to step out of straight society and proclaim who they are.
Why? For some it is not enough, after decades of silence, to simply say to one's self, "I'm gay". To expect that would be like telling someone who has survived an ethnic persecution "keep quiet about your heritage". Or more like asking a Irishman to keep quiet on St. Patrick's Day.
There are so many variants to sexuality and there's no black or white, but to say that gays are recruiting straights is absurd unless we're talking about people who have yet to admit their sexuality. For example, somone who for years has denied being gay and then one day for some reason or other (like Coming Out Day) wakes up.
Again, straight people can't turn gay and vice versa but the choice to live a particular lifestyle, whatever that may be or how you define it, is your own. As others have stated there are people of all orientations who make mistakes and or cross the line. As John stated, society has rules to deal with sexual predators as well.
Kodak has created a fair, enjoyable and welcoming workplace for their employees unlike what Will has done to this forum with this particular thread.
I will take partial responsibility for the direction this thread has gone. There are probably several people out there who think less of me now than they did two days ago, but that's life. You can't please everyone all of the time.
I don't think anyone really got hurt except, maybe, for some feelings. And I still think everyone participating so far remains a valuable part of this forum.
Since David was kind enough to provide a link to the story way back on page one, I'll post the contents of that article just in case it disappears and we start wondering what we're all talking about:
quote:
Kodak manager's firing stirs comments on rightsBy Ben Rand
Democrat and Chronicle(October 30, 2002) — Eastman Kodak Co. is fielding both protest and praise for its decision to fire a midlevel manager who criticized an e-mail that rallied support for gay and lesbian employees.
Rolf Szabo, a millwright with two decades at Kodak, was dismissed earlier this month after objecting to an internal memo about “National Coming Out Day.”
That memo gave managers advice for assisting employees who decide to tell co-workers about their sexual orientations. Szabo replied by asking the company to stop sending him e-mail on the topic, which he said he found “disgusting and offensive.”
His response apparently went to about 1,000 employees, and Szabo was subsequently fired after refusing to apologize.
The dismissal triggered a firestorm of controversy.
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights lobbying group, launched a letter-writing campaign in Kodak’s defense. The organization’s “action alert” urges members to “Tell Kodak it did the right thing.”
The group acted after detecting a rising tide of criticism of Kodak from “the religious right and right-wing groups,” said Kim Mills, director of education.
She noted that Szabo’s response could have been worded better and probably should have been directed only to his immediate supervisor.
“Everybody has a right to their opinion, but nobody has the right to discriminate,” Mills said.
Conservative commentators, meanwhile, cite the Kodak case as another example of political correctness run amok. They say the company has trampled Szabo’s free speech rights with its actions.
The Rev. Jerry Falwell, in a column carried by WorldNetDaily, an online alternative newspaper, said Kodak’s actions are an example of bigotry and intolerance -- toward people with opinions such as those held by Szabo.
“Diversity is an alluring word that the left utilizes to camouflage its ongoing effort to silence people of faith,” Falwell wrote.
In a separate commentary, the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, wrote that he’s worried that the Kodak and other recent cases show that “free speech and religion rights of individuals are being violated by an aggressive minority.”
Szabo declined to comment Tuesday on the advice of a lawyer.
A Kodak spokesman said that while the company does not usually comment on personnel matters, misconceptions in this case warranted a response.
“Mr. Szabo was not -- I repeat, not -- dismissed for holding a particular opinion, and he could have expressed it to supervisors or to human resources without negative consequence,” Gerard Meuchner said. “Instead, he sent his message to other people in his department -- about 1,000 people -- and in the company’s view, this act created the potential for a hostile work environment.”
Meuchner said Szabo was told “that the company did not wish to dismiss him but merely to counsel him about why his conduct was inappropriate. He was not asked to admit his opinions were wrong but to acknowledge that the way in which he communicated them to about 1,000 people was inappropriate. He refused to create and sign documentation to this effect, despite repeated requests, knowing that his refusal would result in his dismissal.”
He added that Szabo “has the right to appeal his dismissal with an employee-based dispute resolution panel.”
Rochester’s largest employer has regularly been recognized as one of the best places to work for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.
There is only one thing that really grates on my nerves, and that's fluffy politically correct babble. As each year passes, this gets worse and worse, to the point of it being offensive. Yes I know this may sound crazy to some people, but this P.C. crap really does offend me at points. However, I must give credit to Kodak because I think they have done an excellent job in being fair to everyone with their policies. Their posted values are very well written and I have no reason to believe that as a company they would not follow them. It is clear to me that they are taking an attitude similar to my own. Accept everyone for who they are and let them do whatever they want.
Fortunately for me my only real "racism" is toward people of any age, sex, color or gender preference who continuously talk in P.C. language. So coming from someone who really couldn't give much of a rat's ass about things like this, it is very clear to me that Will is a super-homophobe. The idea of that lifestyle is probably the #1 most disgusting thing in the world to him. And you know what Will? Fine. It is your right to have that opinion, and if that's the way you feel, then I understand completely and you should be free to continue living your life in disgust at what two gay men do together. However there is one thing that I do not agree with, and that is when people force their beliefs on another person. You have in different wording have already expressed this same attitude, but with this one glaring exception towards gays.
In this case, you are forcing your belief onto others that gays are disgusting and should be beaten anytime they even take a look at a straight man and should spend all eternity in hell. Before I go any further let's make one thing really clear. Your belief alone I have no problem with, it's just the preaching and the forcing. I am not a racist guy by any means. I couldn't care less if you were white, black, green, straight, gay, if at one point you were a woman, if you believe in God or even if you worship the swastica. I really don't care, for it's your life and you are entitled to however you want to think. Seriously though, is it REALLY a problem for you knowing that two guys are out there having "backdoor fun" with each other? Does that really affect you in any way? You're not a part of it. You're not watching it. You don't even have to think about it if you don't want to. So really, what's the big deal? Let them go about their lives and you go about yours.
Yes I have a few gay friends. (In fact I probably have gay friends who have not "come out" yet that I don't know about.) Do I run around in public yelling "FAG ALERT!" while I point my finger at them? Of course I don't. First off, it's their decision as to whether to "come out" or not and whatever their decision is, that is their decision that should be respected. Kodak sponsoring a "coming out day" is quite admirable actually. It does not endorse being gay. It only lets their gay employees know that if they want to put an end to the hiding that they will continue to be welcome at their place of employment and will not be discriminated against. And what exactly is wrong with that again?
Have my gay friends ever hit on me? Nope. I have met a few of their gay friends as well and have never been hit on by them either. In fact no gay person has ever tried to "recruit" me. Maybe I'm just not pretty enough. However, if these stories of yours are indeed true about being hit on by gay men so often, then you must be one sexy beast in person because your picture just doesn't show it. (No that wasn't intended to be offensive as I know Will has a good sense of humor.) Before you ask, yes I have been hit on by gay men before too. Might I inquire as to how old the gays were that hit on you were? Would it be worse if they were substantially older? I am 32 and seem to attract the senior citizen gay party. You know what...big deal. Let them have their fantasy. It doesn't hurt me and it doesn't involve me past my saying "no, but thanks for asking", getting a quick blast of cold air up my spine and walking away. Do I walk away offended? No. So how would you react if an 80 year old woman hit on you? Would it be the same way, or would that be ok because it was coming from a woman? What if that woman was black instead of white? What if that woman had some kind of hideous scars from an accident earlier in her life? How about a woman without any legs? At what point are you disgusted enough to feel that violence needs to be brought into the situation? Might I ask how you would react if you were in a room where two women started kissing and taking their clothes off and having sex with each other. Would you be disgusted? Would you threaten them with a beating if they didn't stop? Would you actually inflict physical violence on those two women if they failed to stop? You do know that two women having sex together is also homosexuality, right? I haven't read the Bible from cover to cover so I may have missed a passage, but bringing religion into this example, I'm just betting that two women pleasuring each other wouldn't be acceptable. Can anyone tell me if I am right on this?
Past all this I do have a tip for you, Will. Since being hit on by a guy is so offensive to you, perhaps you should start buttoning up that shirt so the gays can't see that hairy chest of yours.
Now I'll pick on Tim for a minute. So Tim, just for fun what's worse?
I'm thinking it is more of a religious thing than a gay thing in your mind. If the Bible did not say that two men should not lay together and that they will be forever punished by being refused admission to heaven, would it be such a big deal? What if there was no reference at all to homosexuality in the Bible? I only bring this up because there are a lot of good, honest people who are upstanding citizens in this world and in essence follow the Bible from one end to the other, but do not fear God nor believe in an all-powerful being. If when they die they find themselves at the ticket taker's stand to heaven, should they be refused admission simply because they did not believe? What if I asked you to prove that there was a God? Can you? There are some people out there that would say you are more crazy than the gays for believing in your faith. What about your parents who in one way of saying it "brainwashed" you during your childhood to believe in God? You weren't ever proven that God exists, right? So you are just believing what your parent's brought you up to believe, right? How do you feel about Mormons vs. Christians? Should one not be given an eternal pass to heaven because they put their faith in the wrong religion?
Am I suggesting you lose even one ounce of your faith in God? Or course not. Am I saying that you are wrong to believe what you believe? No way. However you and Will seem to each have a hot spot here and although there are millions of people who have the same beliefs that you do, there are millions who think you are full of shit. Unfortunately there is no way to end such an argument because by the time anyone here gets "proof", they will be dead.
I am going to quote something because this is worded so well...
quote:
"It has been my experience that some people do indeed pick and choose Biblical passages to match their prejudices and conveniently reject other passages that do not reflect their views. As for me, I look for the underlining meaning behind the texts of the holy books I was raised with to apply to my modern day life. "
So what do I think? Guess what, it's none of your damn business. I only posted this to get the people who have and have not posted here to think about the racism in their own minds from an opposing view regarding gays and religion and everything else in this world that people have hatred towards. What I believe in this life has nothing to do with Will, Tim or anyone else here. And why is that? It's because I am not going to push my beliefs on such things to others. I'll save the pushing for more important things, like what kind of equipment to buy and the most effective ways of putting on a flawless presentation. I felt the need to post because I just love to argue the opposite point toward anyone who feels overly strong about something. (So seriously guys, no offense was intended toward any of you and no you shouldn't consider my counter-argument my actual beliefs.)
If I agree with any one thing on this thread it's what Adam said. Asian food is definitely disgusting!!!
I've also dined at Kodak's facilities in Hemel Hempstead UK, Toronto Canada, Chalon-sur-Saone France, and Stuttgart Germany.
Kodak's Rochester cafeterias sometimes offer asian style food (usually stir-fry) as a CHOICE, with lots of DIVERSITY on the menu.
Unfortunately, the Rochester cafeterias don't serve wine or beer with the meals, unlike some of the other Kodak sites. 
quote:
Do you know what disgusts me? People who lash out with intolerance and hatred when something offends them. And Asian food.
quote:
Asian food is definitely disgusting!!!
quote:
If Kodak ever endorses or promotes asian food I am outta here!
Wow. Now I'm so offended! And hungry too...
Anyone care to join me for some beef uterus and chicken feet?
Or maybe sea cucumber?
We can wash it down with some uni (sea urchin) afterwards... 
On topic, having worked in Las Vegas stage, network TV, and Hollywood motion picture production for a quarter century, I really appreciate gay men. They leave more women for us heteros.
Ja ne,
Paul (Kawasumi) Mayer
Ninja Projectionist
(Like most Japanese, Buddhist and Shintoist only when I need to be)
Samurai Film Editor Reject
(Couldn't cut it)
BTW, John, I guess from your post that the food served inside Kodak HQ is a distinct improvement on what is available in the rest of Hemel Hempstead. I stayed there one night when, as a film archiving student, I was en route to a teaching visit at the National Film and Television Archive's conservation centre in Berkhamsted, about 10 miles south of HH. I ate at what appeared to be a very nice Indian... and woke up the following morning with an awful stomach ache and needing frequent trips to the loo!
Danny
quote:
I ate at what appeared to be a very nice Indian... and woke up the following morning with an awful stomach ache
Now Leo's gone and brought up cannibalism.
Maybe we should pause for just a moment and consider how fortunate we are to live in countries where we can express our opinion freely and have an open discussion on issues such as this without fear of religeous or political retribution. We need to remember that there are plenty of people living in the world who are not so fortunate.
cheers Peter
Perhaps that's because our photos, real names and geographical locations are used here? And maybe all the violent, homophobic ideology that is allowed to spew forth so freely encourages closeted gays to remain silent.
This is a lot like having to hear "nigger" and "spic" jokes when folks assume that I'm white. For a long time I didn't speak up because I felt unsafe or I feared for my popularity. That is, until one day when I decided I didn't give a flying fuck about how racist assholes perceived me.
And, furthermore, those jokes are just plain wrong. The ideology that created them is offensive.
This is why it's so important for homosexuals to come out. There is strength in numbers. When companies endorse "coming out day" it serves two purposes. First, it tells gay people (whether they choose to come out or not) that they need not fear discrimination. Second, it is a cue to homophobes that they need to calm the fuck down and keep those thoughts out of the workplace. Clearly, the Kodak guy didn't take that cue.
I also find it kind-of ironic that homophobes take such issue with coming out day...a day that wouldn't exist were it not for homophobia!
At least now I know who to avoid at ShowEast/ShoWest!
~Manny.
quote:
Maybe we should pause for just a moment and consider how fortunate we are to live in countries where we can express our opinion freely and have an open discussion on issues such as this without fear of religeous or political retribution. We need to remember that there are plenty of people living in the world who are not so fortunate.
Well said
Josh
What is also wrong is when someone infringes on the rights and the well-being of another person and his/her personal property.
The whole "how it makes someone feel" crap has severely impinged on our rights. Restricting ones expression doesn't restrict their thoughts, it only encourages ignorance of those around you.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
quote:
Free Speech eh? If you don't have a poltically popular view, you really aren't allowed free speech...instead you will be sent to sensitivity training for your incorrect thoughts.
No..you (in a corporate environment) will be sent to sensitivity training for your inappropriate SPEECH, which is an action, not your thoughts. Not all speech is appropriate in a workplace, just as it's not okay to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre unless there is one. Nobody gives a damn what you really think - they care how you act in a work environment. Would you rather have a workplace where people are free to express every bit of racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of harrasment?
Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is a poor example since the basis of it is that while the right to yell FIRE is indeed protected, the result of the action (people stampeding to get out) is not protected. Your right to own a gun doesn't give you the legal ability to go around killing people in the neighborhood.
I would MUCH rather know the thoughts of the people around me than work in ignorant bliss.
And for the record, people do care what you think...because thoughts often turn into actions.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
When hateful thoughts turn into hateful or violent actions, the person who hates does not belong in the workplace.
quote:
When hateful thoughts turn into hateful or violent actions, the person who hates does not belong in the workplace.
The problem comes in defining 'hateful'. What might be acceptable to one person is hateful to another. We all have hang-ups and issues which affect us individually, and a sensible decision has to be made as to the extent to which we let those impact on other people. If you take the politically correct line that no-one can express any opinion because someone might take it the wrong way, it would make for a pretty boring existence.
quote:
If you take the politically correct line that no-one can express any opinion because someone might take it the wrong way, it would make for a pretty boring existence.
Leo, I think the problem with political correctness is not that no-one can express an opinion but rather that some opinions are considered appropriate and others unappropriate at such an extent that an individual who dares expressing his views will be banned from a community. That's what bugs me.
I was lucky so far, to work in places with mature and open people who never spent time arguing about each other's difference but simply accepted it, making political correctness unnecessary to protect some.
"I don't believe anyone should be defining themselves by their sexuality."
The problem is, with many Gays and Lesbians, that EVERYONE ELSE defines them by their sexuality. When a friend of mine had to take a relative to the emergency room, she overheard the receptionists at the desk speculating that she was probably "G-A-Y." Had my friend been marching in a gay parade, these same people would probably have said, "I don't want to know about her disgusting bedroom habits." But they want to talk about it on their own terms.
Not too long ago, a man was shot to death because he was in a public restroom carrying a purse and holding onto another man. The murderer thought he was killing a faggot. In reality, the man was holding his wife's purse at her request, because she was in the ladies restroom. And the man on his arm was blind--the victim was guiding him.
Obviously, the victim wasn't shouting, "We're here, we're queer!" but through circumstances, he was assumed to be gay by the wrong person. How many times do you see an effeminate man or mannish woman and assume they're gay? You may be wrong, but even if you aren't, why are you even thinking about it? Don't define ANYONE by their sexuality, and eventually, those whose sexuality you don't like won't have to flaunt it to show their numbers.
Thought is one thing, but even hateful words can lead to illegal activities. That neo-nazi (Robert?) Metzger was convicted of inciting to the murder of an African American. Charles Manson will never get out of jail for the Tate-LaBianca murders, yet he wasn't there. All he did was incite his followers. All he did was talk. It's important that ALL of us behave responsibly and with respect toward each other.
Most people are wise enough not to do that. But if I have photos of my wife and children on my desk at work, why shouldn't a gay colleague be able to display photos of their partner? If I talk about my family in the cafeteria, shouldn't they be comfortable talking about their life too? Again, it's a matter of RESPECT for each other, and TOLERANCE of our differences.
Leo wrote: "If you take the politically correct line that no-one can express any opinion because someone might take it the wrong way, it would make for a pretty boring existence."
Likewise, PRETENDING we are all the same makes for a pretty boring existence. And for some, it means a life of fear and misery.
Lionel is correct: the most fortunate of us "work in places with mature and open people who never spent time arguing about each other's difference but simply accepted it".
Moms & Dads: You might want to think twice about letting your kids use public restrooms in Eugene without a chaperone.
I decided to post this because of a situation that happened several years ago where there was a gay rape of a young lad in Vancouver, Washington. The kid was killed and his body mutilated. When the person who commited the crime was brought to justice, it was then learned he was a gay man.
The gay community leaders were extremely outraged over this situation, and they took immediate action to help the victim's family in any way they possibly could.
I don't think anyone should condemn a whole culture because of what one person did. There are truly rottin' people in any culture you can think of.
I think that all of these individual groups are much too caught up in trying to make themselves "stand out" or "be counted" that they themselves are blind to others' beliefs/preferances/lifestyles. I'd have to use my toes to count the number of times someone has added, "By the way, I'm gay" into a casual conversation I was having with them. African Americans don't go around telling people, "By the way, I'm black." It shouldn't matter.
There is an ongoing debate at my University to include the words "sexual orientation" in the discrimination policy. The president of the University said, in a nutshell, that there has never been a documented instance where someone was discriminated against due to sexual orientation and therefore it does not need to be included. However, he added that the discrimination policy of the University is just what the state has, and that he personally feels that EVERYONE should be treated with dignity and respect, and listing each individual condition was unnecessary.
I agree with his second point somewhat, in that I feel it is unnecessary to say someone will not be discriminated against due to "Race, creed, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, color, hue, luminance, brighness, aspect ratio, or whether they crumple or fold their toilet paper." EVERYONE should be treated with respect, and "No matter what" should suffice.
On a side note, the campus bookstore recently held a homecoming-related "event" in which various student organizations were allowed to paint a window for a $50 donation to a charity that provides books to children. A lot of "diverse" organizations participated, including Breast Cancer Awareness, Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Student Union, Campus Crusade for Christ, Free The Planet and the campus chapter of NORML.
Everyone had their own thing. Pink ribbons, the "pride" flag, crosses, planet earth, and a pot leaf. The bookstore had approved of all submitted designs prior to them being painted on the windows. Once painted, some patrons complained about the pot leaf. Without contacting the organization or the artist who took several hours to paint the window, they simply whitewashed it out.
Thing is, I'm sure there were people "offended" by the pride flag or the cross, but if the bookstore were to paint over these, you bet there would be people screaming and hollering.
As for "sexual orientation", no one should be discriminated against because of it, but it shouldn't be flaunted to such an extreme that your actions in the bedroom warrant it being written into a formal document.
Whew! Hope I didn't offend anyone. OTOH, if you read this looking to be offended, then you deserve it!
=TMP=
quote:
Likewise, PRETENDING we are all the same makes for a pretty boring existence. And for some, it means a life of fear and misery.
Absolutely - the Nazis, the Communists and the Taliban (amongst others) provided convincing proof of that. But tolerance and diversity cannot be defined as meaning that anything goes under any circumstances. No-one, apart from a tiny, extremist minority, believes that homosexuality is wrong per se: the only issue is over whether it should be actively and formally celebrated in the workplace, as distinct from being accepted as a routine part of some people's lives.
Personally I don't think it should, because once these sorts of event get formally recognised within a company or institution the eventual result is to promote some agendas but dismiss others. Far from encouraging tolerance and diversity this in fact inhibits them, because people who don't agree with the agendas being promoted feel repressed. The start of that process is some stressed-out middle manager firing off an indiscrete e-mail, as happened in this case, but if it isn't stopped things tend to get a lot more poisonous.
Example - at one university where I was a postgrad, the students' union organised major events to mark AIDS day. Our elected representative for postgrad research (i.e. her brief was to represent us on academic issues) sent round leaflets, in her official capacity, suggesting that we donate to this cause. I felt this to be inappropriate on a number of levels.
I have far less sympathy for AIDS sufferers (in the developed world) than I do for those affected by many other diseases. In the west, AIDS is self-inflicted, pure and simple. There is a known vaccine - it's called not sleeping around and not injecting illegal drugs. Anyone who chooses to do either of those activities does so voluntarily, and IMHO, should bear the consequences. I have no more and no less sympathy for an AIDS sufferer than I have for someone who drinks 15 pints of lager, gets in their car and then seriously injures themself in a road accident. This is unlike, say, heart disease and cancer, which affect millions of people who have led sensible and responsible lives without taking any wanton risks with their health whatsoever. Furthermore, there's a pragmatic argument against prioritising AIDS research as well as a moral one: in Britain last year, 270,000 people died of heart disease compared to 1,500 from AIDS-related issues. So by putting the same money into heart disease research you're potentially saving a lot more lives.
I accept that this is not the case in the African subcontinent, and that many people quite simply don't understand how AIDS is spread and how to prevent it. But we do know how to prevent it, so rather than invest millions in distributing retroviral drugs which at best pospone the onset of the disease for a few years, why not put that money into public education? Common sense says that it has to do more good.
Anyhow, as a result of this campaign, I wrote to the Student Union's president, expressing my view that the reprentative concerned had no right to conduct this campaign in her official capacity and with union funds, and that she should stick to her brief of academic issues. The result was that she made a complaint of harrasment against me to the institution's authorities. It was eventually thrown out, but not before a lot of stress and a lot of work involved in preparing the paperwork and so on. She should have just quietly been told to behave herself (i.e. campaign about AIDS in a private capacity or not at all). But because this issue had been worked up into a politically correct cause-célèbre, anyone who voiced dissent was automatically assumed to be destructive and a troublemaker. That's not what I call diversity.
quote:
In the west, AIDS is self-inflicted, pure and simple. There is a known vaccine - it's called not sleeping around and not injecting illegal drugs.
As for your so-called vaccination, I suppose you're sufficiently satisfied that there's no need to find a real one..? Would you say that staying in a plastic bubble is an acceptable vaccination for...say...polio?
I hope you never find yourself in a position where you regret making such an ignorant statement.
...and when is coming out day anyway?
quote:
I'd have to use my toes to count the number of times someone has added, "By the way, I'm gay" into a casual conversation I was having with them.
I'm sure then if you ever bring up a date you've had to friends in a group, and mention a girlfriend, you wouldn't have any problem with them discussing their dates with a boyfriend, then. As long as they don't actually SAY they're gay.
quote:
I'm sure then if you ever bring up a date you've had to friends in a group, and mention a girlfriend, you wouldn't have any problem with them discussing their dates with a boyfriend, then. As long as they don't actually SAY they're gay.
This is why people are afraid to express their opinions. I never said I "had a problem" with them "actually saying" they're gay. Nor did I say their statement was in the context of them talking about their partner. It was just a flat out statement, like "My cat's breath smells like cat food." I don't know if they were just waiting to see my reaction or what, but I found it to be an unnecessary part of the conversation that happened curiously often.
OTOH, if they were talking about their same-sex partner, then it would be rather redundant to say they were gay anyway.
=TMP=
"Please don't put words in my mouth. They always seem to leave a bad taste."
quote:
"My cat's breath smells like cat food."
That sounds like a line from Ralph Wiggum. Are you a Simpson's Fan?
Dave
Prophecy is being fulfilled at alarming rates. Think about it.
quote:
As for your so-called vaccination, I suppose you're sufficiently satisfied that there's no need to find a real one..?
If that can be done at a cost which is proportionate to the number of lives it will save relative to spending the same money on research into other diseases, then by all means develop a real one. But the reality is that a hugely disproportionate amount of money has been spent on AIDS research, because AIDS activists are are highly politically motivated and very effective at getting their message across in the media. Spend the same money on research into heart disease or cancer and you'll save a lot more lives - it's that simple.
quote:
The truth is, nobody is safe from AIDS anymore.
No, and neither is anyone totally safe from walking across the road and being hit by a car driven by someone whose just drunk 15 pints of lager. But there is a tried and tested way of reducing the risk, and it makes me mad that AIDS activists concentrate on trying to find ways for people to carry on the behaviour which incurs the risks (i.e. sexual promiscuity and drug abuse), rather than promote behaviour which reduces them.
Once again, it comes down to a balance of rights and responsibilities. If you want the right to good health, then you must accept the responsibility to look after yourself. Rather than promote the widespread availability of condoms and needles and campaign for the use of (proven to be ineffective) retroviral drugs, this is the message that AIDS activists should be promoting. Is the National Heart Foundation putting money into research to develop a non-dangerous form of cholestorol? And how many cancer charities are developing genetically modified tobacco so that smokers can continue puffing away regardless?
What I'm questioning is the extent to which society should be expected to invest vast amounts of money in developing medical technologies which enables someone to do the latter without the risk of contracting a fatal disease. Personally I don't think it should, and that the same amount of money could save a lot more lives and improve the health of a lot more people if it were spent elsewhere.
Condoms are clearly recognized as an effective way to stop the transmission of HIV, yet just how many religions and/or governments will not even mention the word "condom", which then leads to more and more victims and their subsequent death. You don't want to wear a condom? Fine, then don't. But to say "don't have sex" is the answer if you don't want to get HIV is just plain, well, ignorant and out of touch with reality and today's way of life. That answer assumes that everyone even knows what HIV is and how it can be spread. While the Western world is a lot more educated about such facts of life (in spite of the fact that people like Ronald Reagan wouldn't even talk about this issue), thousands more in the developing worlds are being exposed and dying from this disease. "Just say no" just isn't going to work when there's not even a way to share this message with the masses.
What's not said about this "uneven" difference in research funding of research is that it's not just the gay community that's going to benefit from such vaccines or cures; look at the statistics: it's the straight world that's most affected by HIV/AIDS, and increasingly so with each new day. THEY (the non-gay people) are the ones that have the most to gain from whatever efforts and successes are being made and gained by the gay community's fight for more and more funding for research. If the gay activists hadn't been so successful in their fight for research dollars, all the conservatives of the world living their own little "Leave it to Beaver" existances wouldn't give a hoot about those who didn't practice the same life styles dying of this disease. That is, until someone in their own family was suddenly struck down when they might have deviated from the "good and godly" path of life. But then those newly infected people would be called "victims", wouldn't they?
Clearly this discussion has gotten far away from the whole "tolerance" issue dealing with accepting and embracing diversity, whether is be on the subject of minorities, ethnic groups, religion, or sexual orientation. And to discount one over another because of the mistaken belief that one group has a "choice" versus another, well, that means that you shouldn't be tolerant of those with a different religion because they, too, have a choice in the matter.
If someone doesn't like working with or being around "known" lesbians and gays, they probably have similar issues with other diversity issues as well. And they shouldn't be forced to work with such people either. They can, afterall, just up and quit. Afterall, where they decide to work is their own "choice."
It's all about sex. People of all walks of life want to live in a world where they can have sex without wondering whether it's gonna kill them.
And I would agree that the pharmaceutical entities are probably all scrambling for the cure/vaccination for the wrong reasons: They're probably in it more for the money than for any benevolent, philanthropic reasons. But prostitution, Viagra and penis enlargement "programs" have proven that there are (and probably will always be) a lot of people -- mostly men, I'd bet -- who will spend $$$ when it comes to their sexuality and the enjoyment thereof.
By the way, when is coming out day, anyway? Will the Film-Tech logo get all gussied up in rainbow colors in support of its gay members? Maybe the site could go from having this powder blue background to a nice, soft shade of pink?
Looks like there's plenty of time left to plan for next year's event.
ALL are welcome here at all times. No one needs a special day to be who they are.
![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
!
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
quote:And to think, Matthew, your member number happens to be 666
So if God didn't create Adam and Steve, who did? Hmmmm? Could it be, SATAN?!
quote:In the book of Leviticus (18:22?) it says that a man shall not lay with another man as he would with a woman.
Can someone point me in the direction of these Biblical references that specifically discuss homosexuality or same-sex relationships? I haven't been able to find them.
quote:Whew, Will, thanks for reassuring us!
T AND A ALL THE WAY..........
quote:Only two? That's probably a lot less hits than the number of women you have probably approached in your life. I'm sure it was uncomfortable for you, but how far did these hits actually go?
2) Over the years I have been hit on twice by homosexuals. I attempted to be polite when telling them that I am straight. My temper runneth over ONLY after they refused to back off.
quote:So you think you were close to the point of needing violence to prevent being raped?
Are women not permitted to use force (if needed) to fend off unwanted sexual advances by a potential rapist?
quote:I am not very religious, but OH MY GOD! Being embarrassed on trash TV (wasn't that what going on the Jenny Jones show was all about?) is reason to go out and kill someone? The victim (no, I'm NOT talking about the killer here) was clearly someone who was to timid to hit up on this guy without the encouragement from the side circus atmosphere of these kinds of shows. If you think THIS is the level of being hit on that deserves death, then I can only imagine how mild the attempts were on you( since you didn't go that far). And asking about "screeners?" Come on, their job is to GET these kinds of guests on the air. Their only failing was not having a camera crew available to record the shooting.
The poor guy was traumitized on national t.v. and reacted by defending his honor and killed the homosexual. My sympathies to the guy who was suckered and embarrassed on t.v.
quote:Well, I think your statements speak for themselves.
Someone said that my "homophobia" is a result of my own sexual insecurity. What a crock of psychcobabble bullshit that is!
quote:See above. If something disgusts you, try thinking of something else. BTW, are you against homosexuality because God says it is bad? Or are you relieved that your God just happens to share your
Personally, I do find homosexuality morally irresponsible and disgusting. Any guy who "gets off" on "doing" another guy is sick! After all, God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!
at the concept? What a relief. That puts YOU on high moral ground for your opinion.quote:Hmmm...Sodom and Gomorrah, perhaps? Let's see, the sodomy mentioned in this rather odd tale involves forcible RAPE! A mob, not realizing Lot's family was entertaining an angel (instead of a man) demanded he let them "have their way" with him. The Godly man of high morals that Lot was drove him to do the only decent thing possible...offer the mob his DAUGHTERS to rape instead! After God nukes the two cities for the evils of RAPE, Lot gets a free pass with his daughters (his wife conveniently destroyed). After getting dear old dad drunk, they each end up pregnant. I LOVE the moral of this story; that is, if I ever figure it out!
The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a no-no
quote:I believe that's the point I was trying to make earlier when I mentioned laws which just don't apply anymore, such as slavery and how women must obey their husbands. Although, there seems to be some run-over into the New Testament, as my previous citations of slavery in 1 Peter and 1 Corinthians suggest.
What the Old Testament has to say about the subject is irrelevant to Christians. The OT documents the history and laws of the Jews.
So does this mean if someone with this attitude hits on me, I can shoot him? In such circumstances, I tell them I'm a lesbian. Unfortunately, sometimes, they feel that their virility would be enough to straighten me out.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
In this time of war with terrorism, we're throwing away some of the people we need most because of this ridiculous fear.quote:I agree. Thanks to a politically powerful minority, this is the case. Whether it should be the case is another question.
There will be no end to the spending/research until a cure is found
quote:Then why is it that, in the developed world, the vast majority of HIV sufferers are either homosexual or have a history of drug abuse? I agree that the disease is biologically capable of being transmitted through both homosexual or heterosexual intercourse, but the figures show that the infection rate is much higher among the gay community than in any other social grouping. That isn't being homophobic, any more than acknowledging a link between lung cancer and tobacco is discriminating against smokers or acknowledging a link between road accidents and dangerous driving is discriminating against car owners.
-- and it ain't got nothin' to do with gays.
quote:And I want to live in a world where I can drink a bottle or two of a very nice single malt whisky every day without ever feeling hung over or risking liver damage. But we all live in the real world, which means we have to modify our behaviour in order to avoid damaging ourselves and other people.
It's all about sex. People of all walks of life want to live in a world where they can have sex without wondering whether it's gonna kill them.
quote:You really think that men are a politically powerful minority?
I agree. Thanks to a politically powerful minority, this is the case.
quote:FYI in the U.S.A. most new HIV+ cases are not gay men. Rather, young hetero women seem to be contracting the virus faster than anyone else. I don't think I need to tell you that young women aren't likely to have gotten infected by gay men.
Then why is it that, in the developed world, the vast majority of HIV sufferers are either homosexual or have a history of drug abuse?
quote:Just because the so-called "patient zero" was a gay man does not mean that he was the first person to get the disease. He was simply the earliest KNOWN case in North America. I don't know what is "current thinking" over at the CDC but there certainly was a time when they were saying that HIV originated somewhere over in Africa. My point is that -- as far as the CDC knows -- the disease was discovered among gays. It is likely that the disease got that initial headstart with the gays because gay men have more sex and maybe this has more to do with being male and less to do with being gay. Possibly also the disease seemed to favor gay men because they were not using condoms but one must bear in mind that, back then, condoms were mainly a form of contraceptive. I'll grant you that being on the receptive end of anal intercourse seems to be the easiest way to contract the virus, but anal sex and male homosexuality are not mutually exclusive. My point is that it is not fair to take it for granted that the appearance (and purpose) of the disease is as closely linked to homosexuality as you would have us all believe.
That isn't being homophobic, any more than acknowledging a link between lung cancer and tobacco is discriminating against smokers or acknowledging a link between road accidents and dangerous driving is discriminating against car owners.
quote:Ah -- and what a worth cause this is! Maybe you should gather a few of your drinking buddies and become a politically powerful minority!
And I want to live in a world where I can drink a bottle or two of a very nice single malt whisky every day without ever feeling hung over or risking liver damage.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:The problem here is that there are a lot of straights out there who don't want to "modify their behaviour" and allow homosexuals the quiet enjoyment of their sexuality. You are being hypocritical. As for the rest of your statement, the reality is that all too often, homophobes end up "causing damage to others." Will can tell you all about it.
But we all live in the real world, which means we have to modify our behaviour in order to avoid damaging ourselves and other people.
quote:I would think the answer to this would be because the original purpose of a condom was birth control, which gays don't particularly need to worry about. The condom is now used for "safe sex", to prevent both pregnancy and the spread of STDs, therefore its use is more common now that people are more aware of the consequences of unsafe sex.
Then why is it that, in the developed world, the vast majority of HIV sufferers are either homosexual or have a history of drug abuse?
quote:This is interesting:
Then there is the story of Sodom and Gommorah, which can be found somewhere around Genesis 13 (goes on for a few chapters). This is where the word "know" gets translated to mean "rape" and/or "fuck." The people cry out to Lot to hand over the angels "so that we might know them." Hence, the term, to "know someone in the biblical sense."
quote:No, I think that AIDS activists are. If anything, men (caucasian and heterosexual ones, at least) are a politically disregarded majority.
You really think that men are a politically powerful minority?
quote:At the risk of sounding pedantic, I was refering to the total number of cases out there, not the current rate of new infections. From what I read in the papers from time to time, this seems to vary. And in anycase, the current number of total cases give an indication of what has been happening over the last 10-20 years, whilst the current rate of new infection will only give you a short term indicator.
FYI in the U.S.A. most new HIV+ cases are not gay men.
quote:Well in that case I find it interesting that gay rights activists and AIDS activists often tend out to be one and the same group of activists. Which is fine - people are allowed to be active about what they like. But when the argue - as in this case - for substantial amounts of taxpayers' money to be spent on research into a disease which affects a minority of the population, then I reserve the right to argue that this money could more usefully be spent elsewhere. There are two activities which vastly increase the risk of contracting AIDS: sexual promiscuity, both homo- and heterosexual (by which I mean sleeping with far more partners than most people would consider normal or acceptable) and injecting illegal drugs. Both of those activities cause countless other social problems as well.
My point is that it is not fair to take it for granted that the appearance (and purpose) of the disease is as closely linked to homosexuality as you would have us all believe.
quote:I would never defend anyone who discriminated or harassed someone on account of their sexual orientation. But neither would I defend someone who claims, on the grounds of their sexual orientation, the right to preferential treatment. Attempting to push AIDS so far up the political agenda, given how low its public health impact is relative to those of other killer diseases, strikes me as claiming the right to preferential treatment.
The problem here is that too many straights don't want to "modify their behaviour" and allow homosexuals the quiet enjoyment of their sexuality
quote:Some would argue that it is about friggin' time. Furthermore, men are not the majority. White men are even less a majority. Curiously, they have wielded a disproportionate amount of power for eons. You need to get clear on the facts.
If anything, men (caucasian and heterosexual ones, at least) are a politically disregarded majority.
quote:The problem with this is that gays were not using condoms in the pre-AIDS era because there was no fear of pregnancy. This, combined with a lack of information about the disease, left them susceptible to infection. As a group, straights were more likely to use condoms to avoid pregnancy and, inadvertently, escaped widespread infection. It had nothing to do with straight people being less promiscuous or otherwise inherently less susceptible to the disease. In order to be fair, you really have to look at how this is playing out now that we are all on a level playing field.
I was refering to the total number of cases out there, not the current rate of new infections.
quote:What "preferential treatment"? Gays just want to be able to walk down the street hand-in-hand or kiss in the back row of a movie theatre or gaze longingly into each others eyes in a restaurant without the fear that they will regret doing so. John P. used the example of having his wife's photo on his desk. Some gays want to get married.
But neither would I defend someone who claims, on the grounds of their sexual orientation, the right to preferential treatment.
quote:Amen, brother! Have you seen that new car commercial (forget which car) where the guy's parents are in the back seat making out? Gag!
I am in favour of outlawing ALL public displays of affection -- gay, straight or whatever.