The Switzerland of Sexuality you say? But there can be only one Renault. I kid.

↓↑report

After reading all of these comments, all I gotta say is a large number of the commenters are a bunch of ignorant f%@#s.

- Ford is not the only auto company (American or not) that gives same sex partner benefits. Trying to boycott every single company that offers this would kinda be like boycotting Chinese made goods.

- America isn't going to be comfortable with sexuality on any level like it is with violence. Funny how those who say "I don't care about gay issues, I just don't want to hear about it" don't realize... guess what? They DON'T have the same rights as everyone else and the government issues laws specifically treating gays as second class citizens.
Being indifferent on a civil rights issue is worse than taking the wrong side. Stop being so lukewarm.

- "Christians" that think they can love someone without accepting their so-called "sins" don't know the true meaning of love. It boggles the mind how so many people proclaim Jesus as their lord and savior yet completely miss the point of his teachings. Kinda reminds you of the "Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees" and the "Oh! He's saying that because we have no bread!" story.

- Neither Autoblog nor Ford is saying that the AFA's stance against gays isn't affecting Ford. They're saying they're choosing not to listen to them. Completely different.

Auto news isn't only about the cars, it's about the companies as well. If your views are always so one-dimensional then your life must be really dull/boring.

↓↑report

In a Reply to this, by SOhp101:
"Funny how those who say "I don't care about gay issues, I just don't want to hear about it" don't realize... guess what? They DON'T have the same rights as everyone else and the government issues laws specifically treating gays as second class citizens.
Being indifferent on a civil rights issue is worse than taking the wrong side. Stop being so lukewarm."

Believe me, most people are not lukewarm, they are trying to be appropriate, diplomatic, and calm. But we can explore this, if you like...

What rights don't they have? They have every right that the constitution recognizes that ANY citizen of the United States of America has. They are not barred from any legal right that any other american is granted by, guess who, our creator; Not by our government.

Is this going toward gay marriage? Marriage is not a right granted by the government. People get married outside of the US government's jurisdiction every single day. Marriage is a religious, cultural and social institution that has been around in only ONE form for millenia. It exists as a foundation for a nuclear family, which biologically requires two different sexes.

If you are talking about legal standing pertaining to a contractual legal agreement, administrated by the government, then you are talking about something other than what marriage really is. Employment benefits, legal recognitions, etc... are under the perview of the government, but not necessarily tied to the definition of a marriage.

If the homosexual lobby wants to petition the government for redress of grievances pertaining to legal standing, they are guaranteed that right by the bill of rights, and it is up to the constitutional legislature at the state and federal levels to decide what the law should be, based on representing all of their constitutents. That is how it works, for everyone, not just homosexuals. But that certainly isn't being denied them.

Contractual agreements under law are different than marriage, even if legal definitions of marriage co-opt a contract onto the cultural institution. Marriage has been around a lot longer than the US, or any other government entity, and is not a governmental matter. it is a cultural and religious matter, and the government can't enforce nor deny that.

Other than trying to re-define a social mainstay of civilization to suit the wants of a very few people, what exactly is being denied to homosexuals?

And BTW, until the bogus hate-crimes legislation gets passed (which is actually thought and speech crimes legislation, which is blatantly unconstitutional and completely anti-liberty) homosexualism is not a civil rights group. Likening them to a civil rights group is an insult to people who actually lack civil rights, now and in the past.

A homosexual person is no different under the law than any other person. How is that unfair? The homosexual agenda is clearly moving for special consideration, and special rights, which if someone else were to ask for, on condition of a socio-cultural issue, would be flatly denied, legally.

Also, it is funny how critics of christianity mis-construe the meaning of the word SIN. Sin is not something to be acceptable, or merely tolerable at all. Yet everyone does sin. The wages for sin is DEATH. Somehow Sin is supposed to be overlooked or accepted?

Contrarily, people truly are not supposed to be overlooked or unaccepted, just because all people sin, and none have salvation from sin at their command, save one, who didn't sin, and who Christians believe is God incarnate.

So where does that leave things? Accepting and loving sinners, while not accepting their sins, which is not a contradiction to the definition of love. If someone sins against you, do you just say, "hey, whatever, no big deal, you can keep sinning against me without consequence." Sins aren't just small infractions, or mere mistakes. You talk about love, yet you don't understand that love exists in spite of sin, and to defeat sin, not because of it, and not to ebrace it.

For someone criticising Christ and Christians, you aren't all that well versed in the meaning of the words you throw around.

Maybe, by your post, I should think that Christians are second class citizens... if so many people think like you do. That is about as irrational as calling people second class citizens, just because they happen to be homosexual. It isn't true in either case, it is just a matter of cultural politics, and being used as a social wedge.

Christians shouldn't think of homosexuals as second class, or any more of a sinner than anyone else. All fall short of the grace of God. No one can save themselves.

But Homosexuals should also not make Christians their enemy, even if there are disagreements; and push with one hand for more government consideration for themselves, while pushing with the other hand for more government restriction on religious expression. That is an infringement of the rights of ALL americans, and will come back to bite everyone, not just Christians.

↓↑report

Ford's biggest mistake was to first announce that they were pulling gay advertising in response to the AFA, then to immediately flip-flop and announce that they had decided to continue gay advertising. In doing so, they managed to piss off both groups.

Great job Ford, a shining example of the decisive leadership you continue to show.

↓↑report

Re: mk

Sorry, but your argument that the constitution recognizes the rights of all Americans is silly. I'm sure you've taken high school US history, but funny how our former leaders in government found it necessary to amend it to explicitly give voting rights not only to landowners but those who don't; equal treatment of people of all races even though nowhere in the Constitution implies that only White people were given rights; women be given the right to vote, etc. Your idealism that the Bill of Rights somehow secured equal rights for all is a joke, so all of those civil rights groups fought for nothing these past two hundred years! Gosh, someone should have called them up and let them know!

Agreed, marriage is not a right granted by the government. You cannot, deny, however, the fact that the government does not recognize same sex marriage is discriminatory. You can argue that marriage is a religious/cultural/social institution instead of one recognized by the government but the government serves primarily as a way of people creating laws that apply to its people and laws are based on morality, which guess what, has influences from religion, culture, and what's considered socially acceptable. Truth is, you're just splitting hairs.

By the way, by your argument the government should already be recognizing same sex couples. Last time I checked, the vast majority of states and the federal law doesn't recognize these couples, so looks like 'gay agenda' isn't meaningless. I'm also guessing that you possibly would be fine with 'civil unions.' Seperate but equal is definitely equal in your eyes, is it not?

Also, if the 'right' to marry is given by our Creator, if you can point out a passage that explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, I would LOVE to see it because in all the times I've read the Bible cover to cover, I haven't found one passage that states this. In fact, I don't even see a passage that says marriage much be between just one man and one woman, yet strangely enough, I don't think polygamy is acceptable in our society nor is it recognized by any state or our federal government...

Sad that you take the 'wages of sin is death' so literally. So what you are saying is that if someone who has lived a reasonably good life, believed Jesus as his savior, and then maybe secretly hated the nurse that wasn't so nice to him while he was on his hospital bed, and then suddenly died, would be condemned to hell? After all, he committed a sin, and sin = death. Truth is, even though it seems so simple, you are not in any position or authority to declare his soul's fate and therefore do not know for sure. You're more than welcome to your own beliefs and philosophy (and who's going to heaven or hell) but it's God's decision who is condemned, not yours.

Besides, sin is sin, but the bible never declares homosexuality as a sin. Well, correction, it does in the Old testament, but Jesus did mention that the old laws were thrown out and that he came to create a new set of laws. And about 1 Cor 6:9, (in short) it's a huge misinterpretation (as in Greek =/= English) and if you take the Greek form of 1 Corinthians you'll quickly find out that the terms misinterpreted as male prostitutes and homosexual offenders don't mean the same thing. Malakoi and arsenokoitai have completely different meanings (and many bible scholars will explain to you that those terms were likely 'made' up by Paul by combining different words together).

I also agree that hate crimes against homosexuals should not be given 'special' consideration. Any malicious intent/action against another person, regardless of the other person's traits, is a hateful crime.

A second class citizen is anyone who is forced to obey the laws and regulations within this country without being given the rights and privileges given by the same laws. Homosexuals do not make Christians their enemy; they are not mutually exclusive, but a good percentage of Christians do believe being gay is wrong. What you do is very different from what you say. Love the sinner, hate the sin, is something that ALL people in our society find extremely difficult. We are a society very much into labels and we find value in people that meet our particular label criteria and do not care much for others who do not. Not everyone thinks/acts this way but most people do.

Try studying sociology and you'll quickly find out that the debate regarding the morality of homosexuality is even more recent than marriage; think early 20th century (believe it or not).

By the way, a classic parallel to this whole "Homosexual marriage is wrong" argument is marriage between people of two different ethnicities. The same opponents of this type of marriage use arguments that are not unlike yours. Food for thought.

↓↑report

I've been boycotting ford for 20 years. But I boycott because their cars suck.

↓↑report

Re: SOhp101

That is a lot of food for thought. I wish there were an alternate, more appropriate forum to respond, but this is pretty much anonymous, so I don't know you or any other forums you may be party to, nor any way to respond privately.

Maybe our discussion will help someone else clarify their own views, and otherwise people are free to stop reading right here, and move to the next comment.

Fair warning, The rest of this post is not going to be directly related to FOMOCO, but might inform as to what this Christian believes, if anyone is interested. I only speak for myself, not FOMOCO, AFA, nor Autoblog, etc.... disclaimer.

As a response to some of your points,

Subsequent amendments verified things that the american people ratified that they believed should be clarified.

The Constitution did not deny rights other races or women, or non-land-owners anything. Social traditions did that, and as those social traditions changed for the better over time, they were codified in further amendments.

The Constitution and bill of rights do apply to everyone, and were written to limit the government, not to limit the people, and doesn't discriminate. the Constitution and Bill of Rights still apply as they always have, even with later specifications from further amendments. Unfortunately people are trying to subvert the constitution and bill of rights, also to the detriment of all.

I agree with some of what you say about the government's role in marriage, in that the law is based on morality from religious and cultural sources, but it isn't splitting hairs, and is significant.

My argument is that the democratic republic system of government under the law, can accommodate any person or group of people petitioning for legal consideration. However, representative government also represents people who have other values, in this case than the homosexual movement, and one small minority cannot, and should not over-run the rest. Changes to the legal system from social trends should be passed by representatives based on merit, not special interest influence, but reality is less than ideal.

The right to petition isn't a guarantee that a petition to the legislature will be met in turn with automatic legislation in the petitioner's favor. It certainly is not right that unelected officers of the judicial system are over-riding legislatures and direct public referendums at their whims, either.

Civil unions are not equal to marriages. Separate and different. Civil unions may have the same or similar legal implications as the legal implications of a marriage contract, for purposes like next of kin, power of attorney, estate planning, and other things, for instances, but outside of the legal system, they are not the same thing. Marriage, over-arching the legal implications, is still defined by one man and one woman. Anything else is something else, it is not a marriage, and the meaning of language shouldn't be so maleable that a few people can change that definition at will.

As to the biblical basis of marriage: In Genesis, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and the rest, continuing through judeo-christian history, as well as most of the history of most civilizations, Marriage was between a man and a woman. Monogamy is not always kept, but most biblical figures did not practice official polygamy as a state of marriage, nor "same-sex marriage." Common sense says that God made Eve, not Everett, as a companion for Adam, whether you believe creation literally, or metaphorically. I would say that is a fairly strong track record. Biology and even evolution theory as it applies to humans and most animals, depends on sexual reproduction, which homosexuality cannot replicate.

That track record by and large still holds up as the best way to construct a nuclear family and raise children. Not all marriages have childeren, but the nuclear family is best served by one mother and one father. A greater biblical scholar may have a more definitive example of biblical basis, but that can move to a bible-study forum.

Christ says that the wages of sin is death, and he wasn't just kidding about it, or just telling a little story. Using your example, living a good life doesn't save anyone. No one is remotely good enough. If the person hated the nurse, then it was a sin, and probably not the only one. We all do it.

The key to your example is believing in Jesus as the savior. That is the only way, truth, and eternal life, is through believing that Christ already paid for that sin, and all of them. God's grace is the only thing that can save anyone, because everyone sins, and can't help but be a sinner. According to most protestant christianity, dying without grace is to remain in death, rather than new life. It has little or nothing to do with how good of a life you live, because no one lives that good of a life.

A Christian should live a good life out of respect for Christ's sacrifice, and because that is what Christ preached, and is God's desire for us to live as well as possible. The bible, as God's word, is the instruction manual. Living a good life and doing good works in hopes of it saving you is folly, and trying to fulfill God's law, which no one can. Part of living a good life is not hating people who differ from you, even if their actions are sinful. One would have to hate everyone, including themselves if one had to hate sinners. But one should not embrace sin, either, since it leads to death, not life.

BTW, Christ came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. He brought a new *covenant* because people can't fulfill the law due to our sinful nature, he did not bring a new law, or diminish it. He showed that if you try to fulfill the law without grace through faith, one is then judged by the law, and no one is good enough to be judged sinless by the law.

Grace through faith saves sinners from the punishment under the law, because Christ already paid that cost for everyone. All that ultimately matters is whether you accept and believe that. At least according to Christian beliefs, anyway.

"Hate crime" is a false premise. Crime is crime. If hate was a motive of a crime, it goes to... the motive. Assault is assault, malicious murder is still malicious murder. To add the "hate" moniker to it is to insert a political agenda, not a judicial specificity. The political agenda is to criminalize intent, thought, or speech, rather than provable action. That is a very dangerous slope to go down, for everyone.

Homosexuality has been around for nearly as long as sin, and the morality of it wasn't really debated in the modern era, as it has been widely seen as a sexual deviation until the 20th century. Some debate does occur as to whether it was regarded more positively and normally acceptable in ancient european civilizations, like the ancient greeks, but the modern debate has only come about in the 20th century to bring homosexuality out of the immoral realm into the moral realm. Many people are rightfully asking why, and what that means to our society, in terms of promiscuity, and other social phenomena, including AFA and others' concern that it negatively affects the institution of the family.

The ethnicity marriage = same sex marriage argument is a bit skewed. Being against marriage across ethnicity is a cultural and social tradition that has since been largely scrapped in the western world, and rightfully so; Because ethinicity was rightfully recognized to NOT have a bearing on someone's humanity. A social step forward that nearly everyone can agree on. One can argue that it took too long to happen, but I see it still going on elsewhere on the globe. That is not an excuse, but an observation that some people still haven't learned that lesson about truth.

The difference with homosexual marriage, is that it doesn't only violate cultural tradition. It violates the natural order. The natural order is that sexual reproduction requires two sexes, as mentioned before.

If the norm were homosexuality, humans would be extinct. Homosexuality is not the biological norm, and by extension, cultural and social traditions reflect the norm of heterosexuality. Marriage is the institution that also reflects that norm, sociologically, anthropologically, and biologically, and has for eons.

If homosexual people choose to be monogomous, or emulate a marriage, or whatever, that is up to them. I am not suggesting that they should be prevented from doing what they want to do, within the bounds of public propriety that equally applies to heterosexual public behavior.

However, calling marriage something that it isn't doesn't change the definition of the word, it only confuses people. As I said, legal ramifications are a different matter, and are also not equivalent to a marriage.

Thanks for the discussion it has been interesting, and maybe it has informed someone who has taken the time to read and digest all this. It is certainly more constructive than knee-jerk insults being traded back and forth.

↓↑report

Agreed, the constitution is already set up for equal justice for all but social barriers prevent this from actually happening. I'm glad to see that you don't view civil unions as equal, but when pro/ani gay civil rights begin debating, this idea is the result. From a legal stance, no, it isn't splitting hairs, but the primary issue at hand (lest we lose focus) is that gay couples aren't recognized under the law.

Both sides have made attempts to bring a formal conclusion to this argument and both have had their victories and losses. Marriage being defined as between a man and a woman has been tradition, but traditions do change. As you have pointed out in history, marriage was between a man and a woman, but at the same time marriage was also something that was decided between the prospective couple's parents. Marriage was seen (and often still is today) as a way of joining two families together for the sake of peace or business, not love.

Marriage for the sake of love was a new phonemenon (one of those forbidden ideas that grew during the Romantic Era) that has become familiar today that we've come to accept and now practically expect. Would we consider all of those past marriages to not be actual marriages since they were done for reasons that were unacceptable in society? Who is to say that two consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex cannot have the same genuine care and willingness to commit to each other?

People against gay marriage often use the myth that "homosexuality does not exist in nature," which is completely untrue; there are various species of birds and especially goats that have displayed uniquely homosexual characteristics (males shunning females and instead pursuing other males).

Your general premise regarding you being against homosexual marriages lies primarily in the idea that such a couple would be unfit to raise children.

The idea that children can be only raised by a man and a woman is false. While it is only possible for a man and a woman to create offspring, this in no way guarantees a stable home for children (illegitimate children, just to name one example), which is essential to the premise that marriage is primarily for the birth/raising of children. Children have and are being raised by same sex couples, and to not much surprise, these couples are raising children that are often just as well adjusted to society as others raised by heterosexual parents, according to multiple journals in psychology/psychiatry.

It's common knowledge that a two parent household is much better for a child's welfare than a one parent one. Why does it have to be two different sexes?

Being a homosexual has no bearing on a person's humanity. Homosexuals are not unable to provide for a family nor are the incapable of loving and raising children. Loving the same sex does not prevent someone from raising a child as his own.

If the natural order is for society as a whole raise children that will contribute to society in the future, I can hardly see why homosexual couples cannot take part in that process. Raising children has almost nothing to do with the act of procreation itself; the ability to procreate and the ability to raise children are two factors that have no relation to one another.

Homosexuality is NOT the norm and never will be; acceptance of it, however, is a complete different story.



- Fallacy of reduction (oversimplification)/false cause and effect (Gay people cannot procreate therefore they cannot raise children)
- The 'slippery slope' argument/hyperbole (Homosexual marriage being acceptable will cause the human race to be extinct)
- post hoc, ergo proctor hoc (humanity has been successful because people were raised by heterosexual parents, therefore that must have been the cause so people need to be raised by heterosexuals)
- False induction/argumentum ad antiquitatem (this is the way it's been done for centuries that's why it has to be this way)

are common logical fallacies that people against gay marriage use to dismiss the issue. Many of your ideas of what marriage should be aren't based on sound reasoning, and I would hope that you would realize that and then realize that society has a great resource on hand to help reduce the parental deficit.

Homosexuals are not seeking special status (btw, even crimes against Christians for the sake of being Christian are considered hate crimes according to Federal law) but rather equal status that will be recognized by the government just as other minority groups have achieved in the past.

↓↑report

RE: SOhp101.

I wish there were another forum to really get into this at length, but I have a feeling that this isn't it.

I would love to keep going back and forth, and I do enjoy reading your responses. I have a feeling that this is not the appropriate forum to keep going on and on, back and forth, but it is a very interesting discussion.

I just want to quickly respond to your logical points.

1: Fallacy of reduction. I never said that homosexuals *could* not raise children. They however, cannot biologically have children. Those aren't the same, and I didn't make that leap of logic. Homosexuals do raise children.
However, I believe the counterpoint of two different sexes of parents is a better and more natural environment for raising children. There is a reason that men and women are different, and kids better learn those differences and complimentary aspects in a heterosexual household. The lesser of two inferior options between single parent and homosexual parent households can be debated, but doesn't diminish the natural suitability and sustainability of a heterosexual household.

2: Slippery slope argument is not a false one, and it happens in every part of human interaction. Tell me that parts of the culture in this country haven't been sliding for the last 10-20-50 years...
Homosexual marriage will likely not cause extinction, that is not what I claim, and another leap I didn't make.

However, the re-definition of the meaning of marriage may end up opening doors to further re-defining marriage into polygamy, or incestuous relationships. Those are alternative sexual minorities, as well. Redefinition for one group opens the enticement and precedent for other groups. Give an inch, and you'll lose a mile, in some cases. It may not seem very nice, but it has a history of happening.

3: post hoc, ergo proctor hoc: Humanity has been successful, not because people were raised by heterosexual parents, but because heterosexuals ARE parents, and only heterosexuals can biologically be parents. Even your bird behaviour anecdote doesn't deny the fact that even if some birds of one sex congregate with the same sex, they still have to procreate with the other sex. If heterosexual behaviour didn't happen, they would die out.

Even Darwinists understand that. I am not an evolutionist, because I understand genetics to be a subtractive, not additive process. But survival still depends on procreating. The fittest tend to procreate more, and inferior traits are gradually reduced. Subtraction of inferior traits with the addition of further generations. But those who don't procreate, will die out. And homosexuals don't procreate in the strictest sense.

That doesn't mean that homosexual relationships should not be allowed to exist. They just aren't the same as a heterosexual marriages. They are different in circumstance and usually purpose.

4: False induction/argumentum ad antiquitatem (this is the way it's been done for centuries that's why it has to be this way)
The deduction isn't false, and the antiquity of the tradition goes to prove it's inherent truth, not as a rationalization. Heterosexual based nuclear family works, and pretty well. It may not be a latin-named logic principle, but common sense is that if it isn't broken, don't fix it, or it'll likely end up broken.

I am not saying that Heterosexual based nuclear families are the ONLY way to do things, I am saying they are the BEST way we know of to raise children, and it has been proven for millenia, with very little inroads of alternate family formats. If other formats are so effective, they would be more common than they are today.

Homosexuality is not a new thing, and if it were as effective at raising families, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and homosexual families would be a lot more common than they are, throughout history, and the issue of acceptance would probably not be much of a hot-button issue anymore.

The definition of Marriage as one man and one woman, as the foundation for the growth of the nuclear family is firmly grounded in that experience-proven fact by billions of people of all religions, and athiests. A relative very few people of a minority sexual orientation, very recently in terms of human history, can't just re-define the institutions of human experience and civilization. Words and institutions have meanings, and that meaning can't just be changed on a historical whim, nor should it be.

↓↑report

You're right, this isn't the appropriate forum, so I'll address only this point:

"I am not saying that Heterosexual based nuclear families are the ONLY way to do things, I am saying they are the BEST way we know of to raise children"

I completely disagree with a heterosexual family being the best way as many psychiatrists have disproven through multiple studies that children raised in families with homosexual parents turn out just as well.

Claiming that "best" family to raise children is the one you describe is ignorant at best. That has never been considered the best form of family in virtually any period or culture. Ask any anthropologist/sociologist.

↓↑report

Yes. Ford should have stayed neutral. Because we all know homosexuals don't buy Fords.

↓↑report

Homosexuality does not celebrate 'diversity'.Homosexuality celebrates 'sameness'.'Homo' means same.Therefore people in homosexuality who proclaim diversity are actually under a delusion.The so called 'diversity' component in homosexual activist rhetoric is a media catchword to blur this issue and sell a bunch of second hand pyscho-babble to a gullible public.

↓↑report

i hate assclownz like the AFA.

↓↑report

"cares"
-- should be "cared".

Jaques did not care. He wanted to build an empire.
Mulally is a lot different. If you haven't met him personally, then I would politely suggest that you sound an awful lot like the AFA.

Ford has a very strong diversity drive and we support a lot of non-traditional perspectives. And I know that most of the employees (well over 90%) are "traditional". (I would even say "conservative" - did you see how boring the 500 was?) Having said that, I remember the discussions over the policy change that announced we would be offering same-sex benefits to employees. Nearly everyone supported it. Such a policy makes good business sense. We need great people to work here and offering great benefits is one way to attract them.

As for our decision to not pull the ads? Everyone I spoke with supported it. Everyone I work with agrees that a company shouldn't discriminate against purchasers. And to put an even finer point on it, a common feeling was that if the AFA consisted of people who were obligated to condemn other people's lifestyles, perhaps we would be better off without their input.

We can do well without massive discounts to fleets.
We can do well without pandering to discriminatory organizations.
All persons can.

* Disclaimer: Not an official opinion of Ford Motor Company

↓↑report

good for ford

i for one am more likely to buy a ford because i know that it was built by the best person for the job regardless of their orientation. and to spite evil facist swine like the afa.

↓↑report