| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Criticized for Gay Rights Stance | |
|
||
| Time: 01:11 EST/06:11 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp., one of the earliest companies to extend benefits to gay employees, now finds itself in the crosshairs of angry activists for rescinding support for gay rights legislation in its home state. Critics say the world's No. 1 software maker caved to pressure from an NFL linebacker-turned-local pastor who had threatened to launch a nationwide boycott, and tried to tiptoe away from a bill it had previously supported. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 233 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
11:56:23 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/29/2005 1:20:37 PM |
|
NARTH is a fine organization, but they have their agenda.
Yes (though this is not the only place that makes this claim), but that does not invalidate the findings that the 10% is well-known to be inaccurate. Also, regarding the ACLU and their many lawsuits of removing all religious references... what I think is lost in this debate is that, by default, removing all references to a higher power is replacing it with the religion of Atheism. I liken the issue to set theory in math--the idea here is that you have a set of many elements with certain values, and that we will replace it with an empty set. However, Atheism is not at all the empty set, but it is a set with many values of its own (or, depending on the brand of Atheism, a set in which all the values are zero). At the crux of this issue is that, despite the many efforts to isolate it, society does not exist without religion in either a social or civil context. I agree in that separation of church and state as it was originally intended is a good and necessary concept, but it never meant removal and refusal of acknowledgment of religion in civil discourse. In essence, the attempts to remove it altogether are forcing those with sincerely held beliefs—when those are religious beliefs—to leave them at the door of government. It was never freedom from religion, but it's quickly becoming that. |
| #27 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/29/2005 1:24:04 PM |
|
#30 Chris, please read carefully - thanks.
#29, Steve Too, your observation that, "The answer is God" is quite correct. Please note, I did not mention any religion. Neither Nature, or science could have produced any of us. God did. I am very glad you saw that. That too, proves what is true, regardless of what one believes - that God does exist and he loves all of his creations equally. He is found in each of them and all things - this thread, you, me, Chris...all of us. That was and is all that I wanted to share. What choices we make must remain between oursleves and our God - and this is the position that Microsoft, or any of us should sustain. Microsoft, I hope, chose to abstain because as a company they reason it is irrelevant to communicate a truth which evidences itself so completely Lastly, Chris, the God where I live is no different than the one where you live. |
| #28 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/29/2005 1:56:43 PM |
|
#33, is also quite correct and the driver and the truly horrid truth is far worse than what one is led to assume based upon the editorial press.
Abortion - regardless of what one advocates - for or against... is not about it being right, or wrong - in fact, the very debate masks what abortion really is: I do not know what each of your knowledge is relative to the global pharma industry, but you should know that the most valuable comodity traded within in it is human tissue - fetal tissue. Abortion, masked as a right to choose <there's that choice thing again>, is about harvesting tissue. You must know that unborn fetal tissue is processed. Aborted babies are carefully packaged and sold and the main source of income for the abortion clinics is not patient care and related fees - it is the programmatic packaging and distribution of fetal tissue. The bigger the baby, the higher the revenue. Hence, late term abortion and its advocacy - big babies... big dollars. Fetal tissue [by the ton] is processed and sold...to pharma companies where it is used for a variety of reasons. "Used" fetal material is then re-sold to a large number of industries - cosmetics is a big one - and my how the Europeans love it and ironically, refuse US manufactured cosmetics because our are processed with "chemicals" vice "retired" fetal material. Big babies, big dollars. Again, driven by choices. The facts add an interesting twist to one's thoughts as one wipes the lipstick from his EU girlfriend off of his collar...and they are so upset about Windows having a media player...? One would do well to look at the amount of genetic material in such products. |
| #29 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/29/2005 4:05:45 PM |
|
in the United States, you are only equal if you are straight.
That's one way to look at it, but you must acknowledge that there is another side in this debate. Previously, no one was considering a male-male relationship or female-female relationship to be called "marriage" or to be given the associated rights. Recently, this has become an issue. But there are two separate questions--one, the legal rights, and two, the title of marriage. Marriage is not a US government institution, but it has made legal accommodations for it. The government has jurisdiction over those rights, but there is reasonable doubt over whether it does over the title of marriage. And, the government (in a democracy, the people) would indeed have the right to determine in its land whether or not homosexual relationships would be given the same legal status as that of marriage. Some like Chris Matthews (though I doubt it's his idea, but that's where I heard it first) propose that, if two people are living together--married, homosexual, best friends, whatever--they should be given the rights equivalent of marriage. I'm not so sure if it's a great idea (we have enough divorce as it is), but it does in some ways resolve the issue. I think the main resistance is to calling homosexual relationships "marriages," because it represents the US government treading on ground (which many view as a religious institution) over which it is seen to have no jurisdiction, as well as requiring not only acknowledgment and tolerance, but acceptance of homosexual lifestyles as OK (teaching their kids in public schools that marriage comes in many types, including male-male, female-female, etc.). Many people object to that, andhave the right to do so. In addition, since the whole definition of marriage is called into question, there is no logical reason that would stop it from being expanded to two men and one woman, one man and two women, three men and ten women, etc. For example, what if you're bisexual (genetically predisposed, of course)? Then aren't your rights being squashed because you can't marry both a man and a woman? No religion should be forced upon people. A noble sentiment--and one with which I wholeheartedly agree--but beyond the superficial niceties of that concept comes the realization that society does not exist in a religious vacuum. Beliefs are going to clash with other beliefs (which, of course, may not have anything to do with religion). You get into real trouble when one side has beliefs that they feel cannot be compromised and the other side has opposite beliefs. But nothing good will start without acknowledging and understanding each other's viewpoints. |
| #30 By 12071 (203.206.248.144) at 4/30/2005 12:50:21 AM |
|
#34 I won't reply to all of it except to say:
a) You need to choose whether to accept it all or accept none of it. The issue with this is who are you or the "Christian community" to decide which bits to ignore or even if any of it can be ignored. Seems a little arrogant wouldn't you say? b) I stayed away from sins as throughout history ALL sorts of acts have been considered sins at one point in time or another - and all of those came from someone's interpretation of something they read in the bible. Needless to say, many of those sins are not considered sins anymore - which you once again have to admit doesn't make sense - it's either a sin or it's not - there's no sort-of-sins! And this is the real issue - people base their views/actions on their own or someone else's interpretations - which vary with time! c) I touched on this one in a). No offence to you or anyone else in the Christian/Catholic community but not a single one of you has the authority to decide which bits of the Bible are relevant and which are not, given that you believe that the Bible is the word of God. Because if it is the word of God - then it's a little arrogant for any human to decide which bits are really important, which bits are just guidelines and which bits can be ignored. #38 "Neither Nature, or science could have produced any of us. God did." See that's what I really like about you lketchum - you get right to the facts! You skip any logic or proof or evidence or anything like that... and jump straight to blind faith and preach those facts! "Lastly, Chris, the God where I live is no different than the one where you live." Which God do you speak of here? The one that at most 30% of the world believe in? Or one of the gods that the other 70% of the world believe in? I'm waiting for the usual response here of you claiming that the Christian God is the one and only true God - an arrogant view given that the vast majority disagree with you! And do go back and answer my questions about where you live where homosexuals are constantly trying to convert you! Unless of course no such thing happens, it's only certain religious groups that are trying to force their beliefs onto others! Or perhaps you have difficulties trying to come to terms with nature not all being the same, meaning that humans can continue to survive as a race even with the huge risk that homosexuals and lesbians pose! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 233 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
11:56:23 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
