• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

"Gay Androids" at Pride Parade Chicago

I understand what he is saying though.. I mean as far as in the work place, sexual preference or anything of that nature should be left at home.. IMO
Click to expand...

Those of us who are heterosexual have no need to hide that sexual orientation. Gays have had to do just that in the western world and many other places for fear of life and limb.

Once gays began to come out, and I'm not sure what caused it and I'm sure that is complicated, they began to get together as a group, a community, and make it known publicly that its ok to be gay.

One of the ways they reach out to one another is with public display of their pride at being who they are instead of having to pretend like they are heterosexual for their financial and even physical survival.

For heterosexuals to demand that homosexuals leave their orientation at home seems fair enough, unless one comes to the understanding that to gays "leaving who I am at home" is to become somebody else "for them, for survival" and is to go back to the days of hiding just so they can have a job as readily as their straight counterparts, employment being just one sad example of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Yeah but how quickly will a straight guy get brought up on sexual harassment charges if we were to bring our sexual preference into the work place and flaunt it? Its not discrimination. I'm just saying there is no place for it in the work place..
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
 
G.Armour said:
I'm just saying there is no place for it in the work place..
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement with you as long as what you mean by "..in the work place.." is the job duties and working relationships with colleagues and co-workers.

But if by "..in the work place.." you mean you're willing to give up your wife's right to medical and other benefits (retirement, etc) because of your sexual orientation, then we part company because that is what gay couples have faced for decades in the U.S.

..until they began to challenge their "work place" by demanding the same rights as we have.

It's not about fraternizing, it's about equal rights, folks. This is not rocket science.
 
mpw said:
There is a marked difference between hiding, and not revealing your sexual orientation in the workplace.
Click to expand...

What is that "marked difference?"

If there is a difference between "not revealing," something straights preach about being ok with, even though they openly flirt with members of the opposite sex everywhere they are, especially men to women, including in the work place, and "hiding," it is one of motivation or the reasons one is not open, but it is exactly the same thing.

I dare say, nearly all heterosexuals are open about their sexuality to the point of being proud to hold hands with their girl friends and wives at company picnics.

But if a gay couple dare do that they'd better be sure there is no roving straight manager who is known to jump on them as "flaunting their life style in front of us."
 
Frisco said:
...until they began to challenge their "work place" by demanding the same rights as we have...
Click to expand...
Maybe 'they' (I'd prefer 'we all') challenge the government/tax authority to make the tax system fair, rather than challenge employers and introduce inequality to pay and conditions based on which company you work for.

What is the situation for heterosexuals who choose not to marry? or polygamists who have more than one spouse? Does Google cover their medical insurance/tax liabilities equal to it's 'traditional' heterosexual married employees, and those homosexual employees with partners (married, civil or otherwise)?
 
mpw said:
Maybe 'they' (I'd prefer 'we all') challenge the government/tax authority to make the tax system fair, rather than challenge employers and introduce inequality to pay and conditions based on which company you work for.

What is the situation for heterosexuals who choose not to marry? or polygamists who have more than one spouse? Does Google cover their medical insurance/tax liabilities equal to it's 'traditional' heterosexual married employees, and those homosexual employees with partners (married, civil or otherwise)?
Click to expand...

Interesting how the discussion about gay rights always turns to extremes. "What about lizards and rabbits who want the same rights as two normal pandas?"

As far as couples go, married or not, that is a great issue and proves my point here: gays can't marry legally in most states. How convenient for "old school" or downright homophobic companies to deny them the same rights as straights.

That's changing.

Unmarried couples wanting rights are getting them, no matter their sexual orientation, slowly, but it is happening.
 
Frisco said:
...How convenient for "old school" or downright homophobic companies to deny them the same rights as straights...
Click to expand...
The issue here is not about a company being 'old school' or 'downright homophobic', and I'm not sure which companies you're referring to that are denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexual (I dislike the term 'straight' in this sort of discussion, as it implies some sort of negativity to being other than 'straight', and I don't think that's what anybody so far in this discussion is expressing), unless you're taking the issue beyond Google and it's payment of it's homosexual employees tax liabilities.

My issue is that the company should offer the same package to all employees, regardless of their sexual orientation (or tax situation), but also that the State should tax people the same regardless of sexual orientation, and if that were to mean that heterosexuals became liable for more tax, then that's just fine by me.

I'm not trying to take anything to extremes, and I certainly not trying to suggest that heterosexual and homosexual could be likened to different species. I see no reason to differentiate pay and or taxes of the same species based on sexual orientation.
 
"The same rights" are in the future, not now. And probably not for a long time because straights who are policy makers don't understand that it takes over the top effort against the system to make needed changes.

That translates to people who have been discriminated against approaching the problem with a lot of energy and in large groups, and that scares the "old school" homophobes right to the core, so a struggle ensues; they start to draw lines and those discriminated against begin to win not because they asked nicely, which failed, but because they demanded with a loud, collective voice. So, more fear starts being expressed, only it morphs from, "Who do those queers think they are?" to "We just want them to leave their sexuality at home." lol

And that often adds up to something that looks a bit like affirmative action, which inevitably leads to people in power (white hetrosexual males, for the most part, although that is changing) claiming that they are being discriminated against. Funny if it were not so ironically sad.

I don't like aa either, but not because it is not needed and seems discriminatory itself, but because it proves we're still decades from true equality.

[edit] With apologies for participating in this topic drift, I'll break off the conversation here and invite anyone who wants to discuss this subject further to just start another Lounge topic on gay rights, if you wish to.

It seems very closely related, of course, to the postings about the parade, but we were asked to keep it on topic and we have not.. so.. perhaps another topic on this subject will cure the drift.
 
Frisco said:
..."We just want them to leave their sexuality at home."...
Click to expand...
Don't make it an issue of 'them' and 'us', especially when you trying to argue for equal rights. 'We all should leave our sexuality out of the work place' is the argument I think we all should be making, keep orientation out of the workplace, and out of law where it has no place.

Frisco said:
...And that often adds up to something that looks a bit like affirmative action, which inevitably leads to people in power... ...claiming that they are being discriminated against...
Click to expand...
If you are being discriminated against, than the claim IS valid; as wrong as any previous discrimination was or is, the answer is not to over-react and discriminate in the opposite way, that sounds to me more like revenge rather than equality.
 
In case it was missed, from post #59:

"[edit] With apologies for participating in this topic drift, I'll break off the conversation here and invite anyone who wants to discuss this subject further to just start another Lounge topic on gay rights, if you wish to.

It seems very closely related, of course, to the postings about the parade, but we were asked to keep it on topic and we have not.. so.. perhaps another topic on this subject will cure the drift."
 
Frisco said:
I'm in agreement with you as long as what you mean by "..in the work place.." is the job duties and working relationships with colleagues and co-workers.

But if by "..in the work place.." you mean you're willing to give up your wife's right to medical and other benefits (retirement, etc) because of your sexual orientation, then we part company because that is what gay couples have faced for decades in the U.S.

..until they began to challenge their "work place" by demanding the same rights as we have.

It's not about fraternizing, it's about equal rights, folks. This is not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Here's a big stab into your POV though. Marriage, is a religious thing, with religious origins. Why the state adopted it into legal matters is beyond me, but it still doesn't change it's a religious thing. And with Christianity, homosexuality is forbidden, hence the conflict with gay marriage. Until religion is completely wiped from the face of the earth, which I doubt will ever happen, there will always be prejudice against Gays.
 
IOWA said:
Here's a big stab into your POV though. Marriage, is a religious thing, with religious origins. Why the state adopted it into legal matters is beyond me, but it still doesn't change it's a religious thing. And with Christianity, homosexuality is forbidden, hence the conflict with gay marriage. Until religion is completely wiped from the face of the earth, which I doubt will ever happen, there will always be prejudice against Gays.
Click to expand...

The state needs to make the "legal" term of marriage into civil unions for ALL people. Instead of marriage certificates, it will be a "civil union" certificate for all people. That is the most logical thing to do and it makes sense if it is truly a religious thing. There are pastors of other religions that will marry gay couples, but they're not allowed to because of law in certain states.
 
Vihzel said:
The state needs to make the "legal" term of marriage into civil unions for ALL people. Instead of marriage certificates, it will be a "civil union" certificate for all people. That is the most logical thing to do and it makes sense if it is truly a religious thing. There are pastors of other religions that will marry gay couples, but they're not allowed to because of law in certain states.
Click to expand...

The fact that homosexuality can actually physically revolt and disgust people, without any prejudice, is a big obstacle for that to happen. Some researchers even suggested disgust and the "turning of the stomach" is somehow hardwired into our bodies reproduction system, which we have no control over.
 
IOWA said:
Here's a big stab into your POV though. Marriage, is a religious thing, with religious origins. Why the state adopted it into legal matters is beyond me, but it still doesn't change it's a religious thing. And with Christianity, homosexuality is forbidden, hence the conflict with gay marriage. Until religion is completely wiped from the face of the earth, which I doubt will ever happen, there will always be prejudice against Gays.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is religious and it is their right to get married via the state.
Let's not get into Church and State debates.

Considering how archaic our Western system is in regards to rights as a whole, I am surprised that gays can even vote.
It's sad.

If bible bangers took every word of the Lord literally, as they make people believe they should, their lives would be much different too. But the bible is only convenient when it proves a point they are trying to make against gay marriage.

At least it was happy for them:
i-now-pronounce-you-chuck-and-larry.jpg
 
svrich said:
Google to offer gay staff extra pay to allow for tax inequality with straight couples | Mail Online
Click to expand...

What are they talking about. I remember the first I got married and when I had our taxes done, I was shocked, so I had the do them separate just to see what it would be. It was about 3 grand less if we just shacked up. I called her at worked and asked for a divorce. She said no. I was trying to be frugal. I think it's crazy and gay pride is little weird too but to each his own. I knew there was something different about my android boot animation.
 
IOWA said:
The fact that homosexuality can actually physically revolt and disgust people, without any prejudice, is a big obstacle for that to happen. Some researchers even suggested disgust and the "turning of the stomach" is somehow hardwired into our bodies reproduction system, which we have no control over.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. lol Who are these "researchers"? I hope they're not funded by the church.

That has to be the most awkward argument that I've ever seen regarding gay marriage. Would it be offensive to have the legal term of "marriage" changed into "civil union" so it covers every citizen of the US equally?
 
Ok back on topic.. (hooray for gay) the other, if u want to continue has been moved to Gay rights thread...

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
 
Frisco said:
Nobody leaves their personal life at home completely; that's an illusion.

But if you're pretending to leave it at home, and you're homosexual and living with a partner who may become in need of health care via your insurance from work, you're out of luck, or rather, he is. Unless you happen to work for one of the companies in one of the states where they've passed legislation granting those rights to same sex couples.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant. What I do with my HR department is between me and HR. I don't tell people what I get paid and I don't tell people who I've slept with. True you can't leave personal life at home completely, but being grumpy because of a fight before work is one thing...going around fighting with people about your "rights" to visit the girls bathroom is only hurting your cause.
 
Vihzel said:
That doesn't make any sense. lol Who are these "researchers"? I hope they're not funded by the church.

That has to be the most awkward argument that I've ever seen regarding gay marriage. Would it be offensive to have the legal term of "marriage" changed into "civil union" so it covers every citizen of the US equally?
Click to expand...

As opposed to every study that indicated that gay is genetic? I think it was the same scientist that agreed that global warming is in some way significantly effected by humans.

btw I'm one of those people that gags at the thought...
 
Crude said:
As opposed to every study that indicated that gay is genetic? I think it was the same scientist that agreed that global warming is in some way significantly effected by humans.

btw I'm one of those people that gags at the thought...
Click to expand...

So you agree that homosexuality is genetic? I don't really understand where you're getting at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom