Thank Heaven for Mickey Mouse

[Buddha]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/...aptists_disney

Saints be praised! The Southern Baptists have ended their boycott of Disney! Hallelujah!

What struck me was how Disney's stock was down .04 after the announcement.

[eastside billee]

Ok OK - I understand WHY the Southern Baptists boycotted Disney. I understand everything in the article.

I feel that the morality of America is in the pits. I feel that Disney has done some things to compromise the morality of America, but not any worse than many others.

However, I feel that if you're gonig to boycott somebody - you don't need to make this big public hoopla about it - just do it and let the result be your reard.

As far as equal benefits for gays - the company I work for has equal benefits for gays, and the only problem I have with that is if you are going to give equal benefits to gays, then you should be giving equal benefits to hetros who are also not married, but living together as life partners.

It should have zero to do with being gay ONLY!

[zachcadillac]

Originally posted by eastside billee
As far as equal benefits for gays - the company I work for has equal benefits for gays, and the only problem I have with that is if you are going to give equal benefits to gays, then you should be giving equal benefits to hetros who are also not married, but living together as life partners.

Are gays "living together as life partners" rather than marrying? Nope. They are living outside of marriage because they're not allowed to live within marriage.

If gays had the option to marry, as heterosexuals do, then your comparison would be valid. But if that were true we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

[eastside billee]

Well then....the way I'm reading it is
that gays deserve benefits because the law says they are not allowed to do something, but hetros can't get the same benefits simply because the law says they CAN get married legally?

Something is wrong with this picture.

So then, ALL gays WOULD get married if they could. No gays would remain - just living together if the law were changed.

So then, the company's are then prejudiced not against gays, or marrieds - they are just supposed to be prejudiced against people who are living together as life partners - who choose not to get married because of "whatever the reason".

Is this a reverse religious persecution thing?

Gays deserve equal rights, but non-married don't!

[Billy Ringo]

Gays deserve a prick in the ***.

[happyhospital]

Originally posted by eastside billee
I feel that Disney has done some things to compromise the morality of America, but not any worse than many others.

Hey, I'm as upset about Herbie Fully Loaded as much as anyone, but it's not that big of a deal.

[zachcadillac]

Originally posted by eastside billee
Well then....the way I'm reading it is
that gays deserve benefits because the law says they are not allowed to do something, but hetros can't get the same benefits simply because the law says they CAN get married legally?

Something is wrong with this picture.

So then, ALL gays WOULD get married if they could. No gays would remain - just living together if the law were changed.

So then, the company's are then prejudiced not against gays, or marrieds - they are just supposed to be prejudiced against people who are living together as life partners - who choose not to get married because of "whatever the reason".

Is this a reverse religious persecution thing?

Gays deserve equal rights, but non-married don't!

You've lost me.

History says that, in many cases, an employee and his partner are entitled to benefits if they are married.

Because gays are not legally permitted to marry, this standard cannot reasonably apply to homosexual unions.

Straight non-married couples who choose not to marry are sacrificing benefits in many cases, but it is their choice. Gays have no such options.

I'm sure you realize I never said or implied that all gays would marry given the opportunity. Clearly that is not the case. But if they had the option to marry and decided against it, they would relinquish any claim to benefits predicated on marriage. Thuis, they would be in the same predicament as non-married heterosexuals.

[MotownRandy]

Originally posted by Billy Ringo
Gays deserve a prick in the ***.

Are you offering yours?

[MotownRandy]

While I agree with Zach, I think an employer would be better off with a policy that offers "domestic partner benefits," which leaves it open to any non-married couple living together. Just avoid the whole debate and potential lawsuits.

[Buddha]

Originally posted by Billy Ringo
Gays deserve a prick in the ***.

You're fantasizing out loud again...