<p>Its amazing what people forget about the past." Can we go as far as the Rise and Fall of Ancient Greece and Rome for some historical perspective?</p>
<p>THe Bush white house perhaps needs its own thread
<a href=“http://hypocrisytoday.com/[/url]”>http://hypocrisytoday.com/</a></p>
<p>
Garbage!</p>
<p>Many of the people who voted against it probably agreed with me. Why create a special class of new and improve victims. Maybe they asked the very obvious question that none of you have asked; namely, is there any real evidence of a significant occurance of gays being fired or evicted for their sexual orientation? Maybe there are one or two instances, but is that really a basis for granting special status to gays? I don’t think so. If there really are many examples of gays being discriminated against in WA, what does that say about its citizens? </p>
<p>The bottom line is that people should treat each other with respect and consideration and judge them based on their actions. Creating special status for gays won’t change anything, it will just makes liberals in WA feel better than everyone else because they have shown they care so much.</p>
<p>What “special status” do think is being given? Also, because you haven’t seen discrimination against gay people doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen - many people believe that gay people shouldn’t have the same rights, take same -sex marriage into consideration.</p>
<p>The special status is the right to sue. If you are discriminated against because you are a smoker, you can’t sue the people who discriminated against you. I would say more people are discriminated against because they are smokers, than because they are gay. (I will admit to discriminating against as many smokers as I can; just wish I had more power to do so).</p>
<p>If you contend opposing same sex marriage is discrimination against gays, will you not also agree that prohibiting polygamy is also discrimination against people wishing to be married to more than one spouse? And wouldn’t you also agree that if society should not discriminate against gay marriage, it should also not discriminate against polygamists?</p>
<p>I must admit that, try as I might, I don’t understand the polygamy point and its relevance. Last I heard, polygamy was illegal in Washington State, and has been for a very long time; homosexuality is not. (Even in the past, the act of homosexuality was what was illegal, not being a homosexual.) Now, if and when polygamy is legal in Washington State, I imagine it would be worthy of consideration as to whether polygamists should be afforded protection against discrimination.</p>
<p>It is not very long ago (in my lifetime in fact), that interracial marriages were illegal in many states. To discuss whether interracial couples should be afforded protection, one first had to ascertain whether their unions were legal. I imagine exactly the same will happen with extending anti-discrimination protections to gay married couples. At such point as polygamist unions are recognized by the state as legal, your point might become interesting; until then, it is just huffing and puffing.</p>
<p>Rev. Hutcherson is to be congratulated because he demonstrated the need for the new statute. Before, he theoretically could blackmail Microsoft and others into discrimination. Now, they will simply be able to look him in the eye and say it is against the law. He really deserves our thanks.</p>
<p>Why would anyone vote against the Washington legislation?</p>
<p>Looking back on my childhood, I recall meeting some kids who, even as young boys, displayed some mannerisms, tendencies, and behaviors that are stereotypically associated with homosexuality (these kids were too young to be sexually active at the time); and I later found out that a substantial percentage of these individuals became gay as they grew older. From my own personal experience, I accept that some people have more of a tendency toward involvement in homosexuality than do others (By the way, I also obviously recognize that not all homosexuals display these stereotypical behaviors). </p>
<p>However, according to my religion, all of us, including myself, have an orientation toward doing some wrong things (the wrong things toward which each of us has strong tendencies appears to be different from person to person.). Furthermore, according to my religion, just because I as an individual have an orientation toward doing a particular wrong thing does not give me an acceptable excuse for actually doing it it is still wrong for me to do this. ORIENTATIONS toward doing wrong things are not wrong, but ACTING ON these impulses or tendencies is definitely wrong.</p>
<p>My religion has an available users manual (the Bible) which expressly delineates some behaviors as being wrong. THERE ARE NO GENETIC EXEMPTIONS. These behaviors are simply considered wrong. Therefore, based on the Bible, some of the behaviors that I recognize to be wrong include murdering, slandering, lying, coveting, having sex outside of a husband-wife marriage (whether it be heterosexual or homosexual sex), etc. Insofar as I consider having sex outside of marriage to be wrong, I would be branded by some people as a homophobe. These people typically make the following arguments: (1) You need to understand that this is different; (2) Homosexuals are gay to the VERY FIBER of their being; (3) No one chooses to be gay; and/or (4) Who would CHOOSE to be gay in a homophobic society? The reason these arguments do not sway my opinion of homosexuality and other extra-marital sexual activity is that I do not believe that a tendency toward a behavior (even a very strong one) makes the associated behavior OK.</p>
<p>For example, some of MY worst TENDENCIES are toward promising to do things and then not always coming through later, procrastinating, and interrupting others when they speak (if you do not know your own worst tendencies, ask your spouse). In terms of MORALITY, are these tendencies fundamentally different than sexual tendencies?</p>
<p>For sake of argument, I am willing to assume that there is some genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. In other words, if we had an appropriate computer and could analyze the DNA of all people on earth, I would not be shocked to find out that there are certain sequences and/or relationships among the DNA components of a person that statistically correlate with whether or not that person participates in homosexual activities as an adult. If you had a sufficiently powerful computer and were clever enough to identify the right combination of DNA components, the statistical correlation might even be quite strong (it would not be 100 percent, because there are even identical twins that have different sexual orientations).</p>
<p>If you performed the same type of statistical analysis for other behaviors (for example, lying, helping little old ladies across the street, studying long hours into the night, having a heterosexual adulterous affair, overeating, using drugs, etc.), you may identify other behaviors that correlate fairly strongly with different DNA sequences. Would these strong statistical correlations therefore necessarily render these behaviors to be AMORAL? Not according to my religion. I do not stay up at night hoping that scientists will find a statistical correlation between genetic makeup and my bad tendencies – because I know that, despite the fact that I have a tendency to fall into certain behaviors more than others do, I still am required to resist participating in them.</p>
<p>Another fundamental aspect of my religion is that each of us is responsible for repenting of the things we do wrong. Shaking my fist at God and claiming that I did a certain act because he made me want to do it is a lousy excuse. And claiming that God made a mistake in forbidding certain behaviors that I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY crave to do is also a lousy excuse. Furthermore, telling others that things which God says in the Bible are wrong are actually OK to do because I or others have a very strong tendency toward these behaviors is additionally wrong, on top of the wrong behavior itself. This is a reason why homosexuality is frequently considered a particularly egregious behavior. Because those who practice it claim that it is OK for them to do so and demand that you agree with them.</p>
<p>Consider the following statement by an employee to his employer: I have grown to realize that I have a tendency to have extramarital affairs. As a matter of fact, I began having an extramarital affair. I struggle with this and I see that it is hurting my wife and kids. I have resolved to stop, and I am getting counseling and trying to get over this and get my life in order. </p>
<p>Consider a separate statement by a different employee to the same employer: I have grown to realize that I have a tendency to have extramarital affairs. As I grew up, I was always told that having extramarital affairs was bad. But I am now proud to admit that I am having an extramarital affair. Furthermore, I have finally called my parents and told them I am having an extramarital affair. And I will be marching in an extramarital affair rally this weekend.</p>
<p>If I were the employer, I would think the first man is a human struggling to do the right thing and that the second person is simply a jerk. Furthermore, if the second mans job (or one I might consider promoting him to) required him to interact significantly with clients who would likely be offended by this type of discussion, I might be concerned that he would brazenly mention his unrepentant tendencies toward having extramarital affairs, and this would have an adverse effect on our business. Why should I not be allowed to take this BEHAVIOR into account in hiring or promotion practices?</p>
<p>Consider now another statement by an employee to his employer: By the way, I just thought I would tell you I am a practicing homosexual. What does this mean? I would submit that these statements are much closer to that of the second adulterous employee described above. I recognize that homosexuals are not necessarily politically active and that they dont spend all of their time going to gay rallies. But a statement that one is a practicing homosexual is, in my opinion, just as off-putting as someone telling me that he is an UNREPENTANT adulterer. I would never ask anyone if he is an adulterer or a homosexual, etc. And if I heard that an employee were involved in adultery or homosexuality, it would not be relevant to job evaluations, etc. But an employee who not only proudly stated that he was having an extramarital affair but also conveyed that he was unapologetic about it, or one who made the same statement about homosexual relationships, would definitely give me pause.</p>
<p>What is there that is special about sexual BEHAVIOR, particularly homosexual behavior, which requires that it be considered legally differently from ALL OTHER behaviors? How does one prove whether an employer is considering someones sexual ORIENTATION or his sexual BEHAVIOR? In general, an employer will never know your sexual orientation, unless you provide this information. </p>
<p>You can claim that a persons sexual ORIENTATION will not affect his ability to do a good job. I would agree. But if you claimed that someones sexual BEHAVIOR and his ATTITUDE toward that could not possibly affect his effectiveness at work, I would tend to disagree.</p>
<p>For those of you who think all moral judgments should be eliminated from hiring and promotion practices and should not be considered at all, perhaps you should consider what you would do if you were to interview a candidate for a job and (without his knowledge) you happened to see him drive up in a Hummer with Bush 2004, Jesus Saves and Pro-Life bumper stickers on it, and you saw him remove a Defeat Hillary campaign button as he was getting out of his vehicle. Would that have ANY effect on your opinion of this person for the job?</p>
<p>ok I am trying to understand this
So are you saying that to be an active homosexual is an active decision that affects ones character and morals?
IF so then I would imagine that if it is indeed a negative expression of morals, then other moral failings would then go along with the expression of homosexuality.
So we should be able to have data about homosexuals committing fraud, robbery, murder, lying. adultery, child abuse, etc in larger numbers of the population than heteros right?</p>
<p>I am sad that so many people are born with the genetic proclivity to bank. Struggle as they might, and as clear as the Biblical injunction is, some of them can’t resist the urge to become bankers. Certainly there must be some kind of treatment, not to fix the genetic problem, but at least so they can be encouraged to leave off the behavior, and act morally.</p>
<p>But I think anti-discrimination statutes should probably protect them too.</p>
<p>Following this logic, I guess every employer should fire all adulterers and people who have premarital sex, huh? A person’s sexual orientation and behavior doesn’t necessarily make them a bad person, unless they are a rapist/molester, etc. </p>
<p>I mean, I respect your religious beliefs, but the U.S. is not and never has been a theocracy, and homosexuality doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights, so why should it be considered immoral? Sure, in many religions, homosexuality is wrong, but then again, so is eating pork. So if the U.S. was dominated by say, Jewish people or Muslim people, would it be fair to discriminate against people who eat pork just because the majority’s religion deemed those acts to be immoral, even though eating pork infringes on no one’s rights? (Except for maybe the pigs’.)</p>
<p>And I don’t think this law is creating a new class for homosexuals… the U.S. passed <em>amendments</em> like this, giving black people and immigrants the right to be citizens and the right to vote. I’m sure a lot of people back then protested that they were giving special treatment to immigrants and blacks. And no, honestly, this wasn’t so long ago… even today, people in my area look down on interracial couples, let alone <em>gay</em> couples. </p>
<p>I’m so sorry that you think a healthy homosexual relationship is anything like an illicit adulterous one. A healthy relationship does not break trust, ruin lives, or hurt children like extramarital relationships do – and I find it sad that you can’t understand that yes, queer people do indeed love each other just like heterosexual people do. I understand that it is in your religion to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t understand your inability to perceive them as regular people. </p>
<p>::shrugs:: Didn’t Jesus say something like “let he among us without sin be the first to condemn”? Don’t condemn something when you yourself aren’t without sins. If you feel it’s your duty to warn them about their immorality, fine - they’re probably used to it. But the way you’re going about things makes me think that most Americans would be happy if we outlawed every non-Christian religion and practice in this country, ugh. I thought the whole idea was freedom and tolerance, but whatever.</p>
<p>“Bravo to those WA legislators.”</p>
<p>indeed.</p>
<p>“If you feel it’s your duty to warn them about their immorality, fine - they’re probably used to it.”</p>
<p>I try to remember to do that when I see people who weave cotton and woollen threads together. </p>
<p>However, the beef stroganoff people are beyond redemption.;)</p>
<p>
Boeing recently fired its married Chief Executive Officer for having an affair with a female employee at Boeing. Morgan Stanley recently fired several male employees who went to a strip club.</p>
<p>And Mini, what about those folks planting different crops in the same field? Beyond redemption, indeed!</p>
<p>And then there are the 3000 or so injunctions in the Bible to care for the poor–I seem to recall that Jesus had quite a lot more to say on that subject than on homosexuality (which wa nothing.)</p>
<p>But I in fact see people every day not caring about, nay, actually railing against, the poor. Voting against social programs, not giving to charity–it’s a terrible tendency to struggle against, but I guess the incharitable deserve housing protection, too, :).</p>
<p>Actually, it’s bigger than that. The stroganoff thing is in the 10 Commandments (not the Egyptian set, but those that were written on the tablets of stone - Exodus 34). Interesting that the courthouses have been trying to display tablets with commandments that weren’t written upon the tablets (those in Exodus 20). The tablet commandments place the stroganoff prohibitions (Exodus 34:26) above those regarding murder and adultery. </p>
<p>They knew what was REALLY important.</p>
<p>Allowing Stoneciper to resign after he was brought back is not necessarily what it appears at first glance
Boeing</p>
<p>So are you saying that to be an active homosexual is an active decision that affects ones character and morals? </p>
<p>We are all sinners. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexual activity is wrong, and that only REPENTANT sinners can have a right relationship with God.</p>
<p>IF so then I would imagine that if it is indeed a negative expression of morals, then other moral failings would then go along with the expression of homosexuality.
So we should be able to have data about homosexuals committing fraud, robbery, murder, lying. adultery, child abuse, etc in larger numbers of the population than heteros right?</p>
<p>I do not completely agree with this logic. First of all we should be able to have data – Why? No one accurately collects such data to be analyzed. The only way you could accurately collect such data would be to know whether people actually ARE practicing homosexuals, not simply if they admit it to pollsters (and this is impossible to collect). Secondly, if a person told me that he believed that, for example, lying is OK as long as you get away with it, I would not require any type of statistical data to conclude that this would not be a person I would promote in my company. You may require statistical analyses to decide what type of people you want in your company. While I may be interested in such data if I felt it were reliably obtained, statistical data would not be my sole method of deciding who would be a suitable employee for a company I ran.</p>
<p>A person’s sexual orientation and behavior doesn’t necessarily make them a bad person, unless they are a rapist/molester, etc. </p>
<p>Can you please define bad person? Who (besides intolerant people) are bad persons?</p>
<p>I mean, I respect your religious beliefs, but the U.S. is not and never has been a theocracy</p>
<p>I have never advocated the US being a theocracy. I only advocate that an employer should be able to use his own moral judgments (not state-decreed moral judgments but rather judgments based on a persons individual morals, which may be from any religion or no religion) in personnel decisions.</p>
<p>homosexuality doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights, so why should it be considered immoral?</p>
<p>I do not subscribe to a religion that defines morality based on whether or not activities infringe on someone elses rights. Are you proposing a government mandate that I practice your religion, which apparently includes this definition of morality?</p>
<p>Sure, in many religions, homosexuality is wrong, but then again, so is eating pork. So if the U.S. was dominated by say, Jewish people or Muslim people, would it be fair to discriminate against people who eat pork just because the majority’s religion deemed those acts to be immoral, even though eating pork infringes on no one’s rights? (Except for maybe the pigs’.)</p>
<p>If the US were dominated by Muslim people, Christianity would very likely be ILLEGAL. Check what happens in other Muslim-dominated countries. Jews, on the other hand, even when in the majority, have proven to be tolerant of other religions, including allowing those of other religions to participate in government at the highest levels. By this measure, Israel is BY FAR the most tolerant of other religions of any country in the middle east. How many non-Muslims are high-level government workers in Iran, compared to the number of non-Jews in Israeli Parliament? Furthermore, and most importantly, I am definitely not suggesting that homosexual activity be in any way made illegal. I am simply advocating that as an employer I should be able to use my own moral judgments as to whom I would hire. If I do not hire someone, they are certainly free to start a company and beat me at my own game. And a private company should have the right to refuse to hire me if I do not subscribe to the companys ideas regarding morality and philosophy (e.g. all people are inherently good, except intolerant conservatives).</p>
<p>I’m so sorry that you think a healthy homosexual relationship is anything like an illicit adulterous one. A healthy relationship does not break trust, ruin lives, or hurt children like extramarital relationships do</p>
<p>You must be an adultery-phobe. In my example, I of course assumed that the adulterer had his spouses consent. Why would this break trust? What are your morals based on? And what gives you the right to demand that I share your morals?</p>
<p>Didn’t Jesus say something like “let he among us without sin be the first to condemn”? Don’t condemn something when you yourself aren’t without sins.</p>
<p>I do not advocate condemning any individual. But I see nothing wrong with, IF ASKED BY SOMEONE, pointing out that my religion teaches that some activities are wrong. The Bible clearly teaches that we are all sinners and that ANYONE (including liars, adulterers, thieves, murderers, and, yes, even Halliburton executives and Hummer-owning NRA members, as well as homosexuals) who repents of his sins and recognizes that God is in charge of his life will receive salvation. Pointing out to someone that they have no hope is condemning them. Pointing out to them the only true way to hope is certainly not condemning them.</p>
<p>So you advocate that someone who believes that some races are inferior to others (as many Christians thought their Bibles told them in the past, and some still do) should be allowed to not employ or rent to people of another race, on that basis?</p>
<p>“So you advocate that someone who believes that some races are inferior to others (as many Christians thought their Bibles told them in the past, and some still do) should be allowed to not employ or rent to people of another race, on that basis?”</p>
<p>In my posts, I only have a simple proposition. That an employer be allowed to take into account an employee’s BEHAVIOR. You could only misconstrue this into race-based hiring if you were a racist (i.e. assumed that behavior is determined by race).</p>
<p>I have never suggested that all employers use the Bible as a standard. Only that an employer be allowed to use his own moral standards of behavior to be one component of employee decisions. </p>
<p>By the way, people attribute all sorts of things to the Bible, just as many people misquote the Bible. I have read through the Bible several times. I recall reading portions where the Israelites were not to marry those from other nations, etc., but that was because they worshipped other gods. I have also read about certain nations having people who were reportedly at a particular time physically larger than the peoples of other nations, or having developed certain skills. I have never read in the Bible that any races are INHERENTLY inferior, but certainly some nations and peoples have at one time or another been more aligned with God than other nations or peoples at those times. Please supply chapter and verse references of the portions of the Bible to suggest that the Bible declares certain races of people to be inherently inferior to others, independent of their behavior.</p>
<p>So how is an employer possibly to know whom his employee is sleeping with? Can they tell from their clothes, can they tell just because they’re living with someone? Truly, to know someone’s behavior, they’d have to crawl into bed with him, wouldn’t they? So, really, they’re judging on who they think someone is, not really behavior, right?</p>
<p>And I never said and I don’t believe the Bible says that about races–I said many Christians have read it that way, to justify slavery, for instance. People often find what they want, if it’s important enough to justify their judgment of someone else.</p>
<p>Where does Jesus speak out against homosexuality?</p>
<p>I think every employer should offer a potential employee a bowl of stroganoff to see whether he’d eat it. After all, simply being labeled a stroganoff eater isn’t enough - it’s behavior that one has to know about.</p>
<p>We are not talking about some obscure passage in the Bible here, some offhanded misconstrued comment from an apostle who never met Jesus. This is the 10 Commandments, and if an employee can’t be counted on to keep them, what other sins might he be sure to be committing?</p>