Southern Baptists end boycott

[Soxy]

As for why Eisner did it in the first place it's no secret.  Disney employs more homosexuals than any of the other theme parks.  They even rival some of the studios. 

Source please?

[JUGGERNAUT]

Fine, I'll be the sanctimonious twat claiming moral high ground.

 

Allowing heterosexual and homosexual persons the same rights and responsibilities in the government or in a company culture is the right thing to do.

 

Equal people deserve equal rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They are not equal. Those rights & responsibilities stem from a history of associating marriage with raising childrens BORN from their parents. Yes adoption exists as well as foster parents but those numbers have never been large enough to the challenge this assumption. Likewise there exist childless marriages but again those are in the minority.

 

When marriage benefits first started to become commonplace in both govt & the workplace a childless marriage was considered abnormal. There was little sympathy for those who could not have children despite every effort in attempting to do so. They were considered weaker by nature. Over the years we have become a more understanding society to where we recognize the medical difficulties. But that common place association that people get married to have children from natural child birth still holds today.

 

Likewise, when the benefits first came into being it was abnormal for a wife or mom to work. The husband or dad was the bread winner & therefore any benefit bestowed upon him would have to be bestowed upon his wife as well. Today it's common for a wife or mom to work. Thus weakening the need to retain the benefit system for spouses. That should direct the focus then to the children themselves. Decades from now that might be the case. Marriage benefits would give way to parental benefits. And the guardians (grandparents, god parents, next of kin) would be the beneficiaries. That would be the proper thing to do & it would be good for business as well.

 

If that is the best direction then it makes no sense to extend benefits that exist primarily due to historical norms to a group that doesn't fit that historical norm. It's analogous to 2 wrongs don't make a right. It would be better to further transform the marriage benefits towards parental/guardian benefits & do away with the marriage requirement altogether.

 

Now you might think that homosexuals can be just as good at parenting as heterosexuals but unless you can support it with overwhelming data it's just an opinion. Since I do not share your bias I will look at the data both in support & opposition on the question & make an intellectual decision on the basis alone. No personal stories will impact that decision because they serve only to bias the data.

 

The only fact that should be considered a standard is that which applies on a mass scale.

[Wong & Owens]

Source please?

 

 

INterestingly enough, unless I'm stupid(entirely possible), Disney isn't even listed amongst the top gay-friendly companies according to gay.com:

 

http://www.gay.com/business/article.html?c...rnum=311&page=1

[southsider2k5]

Morality is subjective, and therefore there can be no standard – de facto or otherwise.

 

There are some companies that believe it is good business ethics to insure that people get the same rights to employment, wages and benefits regarless of sew, race, orientation etc.  In the case of the Disney theme parks, you are correct – it is a case where they are ensuring equally crappy wages for all low-level employees.

 

morality is unquantifiable? That's unpossible!

[FlaSoxxJim]

INterestingly enough, unless I'm stupid(entirely possible), Disney isn't even listed amongst the top gay-friendly companies according to gay.com:

 

http://www.gay.com/business/article.html?c...rnum=311&page=1

They have a Corporate Equality rating of 86 (out of 100) according to that source. While that is not bad, there are 72 companies with a rating of 100, so, no they are not in that top tier group according to the metrics that go into that index.

[FlaSoxxJim]

morality is unquantifiable?  That's unpossible!

I don't know if you forgot to use the green there.

 

Morality is subjective. Moral codes, on the other hand, are systems that may take on the appearance of objectivity through custom, practice, and adherance or violation of the given code. That which we label as "moral" conform to the given code, play by the rules set forth by a particular society, etc. Humans societies construct their own social reality, including the externalization of ideas to begin to form a moral code and the later internalization of and adherance to the social imparatives dictated by the moral code.

 

But, the content of a given moral code is not universal across societal or historical boundaries because morality itself is not objective.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Morality is subjective & therefore best determined by the will of the majority in a nation.

 

It's not easy finding Disney's competitors in the list. They do draw a striking contrast to Anhweiser-Busch which owns W&W, Busch Gardens, & Sea World. Universal's parent ownership has had little to do with it's hiring practices because it's changed hands so often. I believe Seagram's was the owner during it's early years & shaped policy the most. I can't find them either.

 

If you were to say which of these mega corps (SONY, Disney, News Corp, Viacom, Time Warner, GE) are more homosexual-friendly from what I could find on that list it's GE. But GE drawfs the rest in that list in mere size of employees so it's probably not a fair assessment.

[Rex Kickass]

They are not equal.  Those rights & responsibilities stem from a history of associating marriage with raising childrens BORN from their parents.  Yes adoption exists as well as foster parents but those numbers have never been large enough to the challenge this assumption.  Likewise there exist childless marriages but again those are in the minority.

 

When marriage benefits first started to become commonplace in both govt & the workplace a childless marriage was considered abnormal.  There was little sympathy for those who could not have children despite every effort in attempting to do so.  They were considered weaker by nature.  Over the years we have become a more understanding society to where we recognize the medical difficulties.  But that common place association that people get married to have children from natural child birth still holds today.

 

Likewise, when the benefits first came into being it was abnormal for a wife or mom to work.  The husband or dad was the bread winner & therefore any benefit bestowed upon him would have to be bestowed upon his wife as well.  Today it's common for a wife or mom to work.  Thus weakening the need to retain the benefit system for spouses.  That should direct the focus then to the children themselves.  Decades from now that might be the case.  Marriage benefits would give way to parental benefits.  And the guardians (grandparents, god parents, next of kin) would be the beneficiaries.  That would be the proper thing to do & it would be good for business as well.

 

If that is the best direction then it makes no sense to extend benefits that exist primarily due to historical norms to a group that doesn't fit that historical norm.  It's analogous to 2 wrongs don't make a right.  It would be better to further transform the marriage benefits towards parental/guardian benefits & do away with the marriage requirement altogether.

 

Now you might think that homosexuals can be just as good at parenting as heterosexuals but unless you can support it with overwhelming data it's just an opinion.  Since I do not share your bias I will look at the data both in support & opposition on the question & make an intellectual decision on the basis alone.  No personal stories will impact that decision because they serve only to bias the data.

 

The only fact that should be considered a standard is that which applies on a mass scale.

 

According to your logic, menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to marry. Nor should barren women or impotent men. Unless the reason for marriage is for the express and exclusive purpose of procreation, your argument doesn't hold water to me. Because the rights and responsibilities that come along with marriage are soooo much more than childbirth related.

 

We believe as a country that all men are created equal. And equal people deserve equal rights.

 

Obviously you don't believe that gay people are equal to straight people. And as much as I'd like to believe that I might be superior to the average breeder, I know that it isn't true. And I think deep down inside, even though you don't like to admit that straight people aren't superior to gay people, you know its true too.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Morality is subjective & therefore best determined by the will of the majority in a nation.

 

Best determined by the majority of the people? Well, we've seen how well the majority goes along with the good and moral things **cough, Final Solution cough**

 

As HL Mencken used to say: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

 

But we're a Constitutional republic that cherishes the rights of individual liberty instead of losing that at the expense of mass hysteria or mass bigotry. It helps to remember that.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But we're a Constitutional republic that cherishes the rights of individual liberty instead of losing that at the expense of mass hysteria or mass bigotry.  It helps to remember that.

Shut up and get back in formation, mutherf***er!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Shut up and get back in formation, mutherf***er!

LOL -- Reminds me of an ep of MASH I watched where Burns tried to court martial Hawkeye. Burns is giving his testimony saying "Unless we all follow our leaders blindly, unless there is no deviation from the norm -- only then can we truly be free." I damn near wet my pants. Who knew Frank Burns is a White House speechwriter now?

[JUGGERNAUT]

As usual you misunderstood completely. I'm not surprised. The gist of my post is that state recognition of marriage & the priv's & rights that affords are basically a grandfathered concept of what marriage meant 1/2 a century ago. That concept doesn't exist any more so the state should have nothing to do with marriage. Extending it to a group that doesn't fit that historical concept to begin with me makes even less sense.

 

Cut the crap with the mob rules or Nazi analogies for the will of the majority. American is a nation of over 150 million literate souls. We have more persons with advanced degrees than any other nation on the planet. Those days when America was mostly an illiterate nation are long since past. The more educated a nation becomes the more the power should shift to the majority. That's common sense. Otherwise you'll continue to set the stage to give rise to dictators that are very efficient at consolidating power & controling the majority.