You're obviously not the target audience of the website, but there are people who care about such matters--people who want only to support those that support them. You're not one of those people and that's fine.

You're spot on about the bottom line, and maybe one day that bottom line will be ditching the label "Gay Unfriendly" in hopes to keep or gain customers.

 

What does "snarky" mean?

Paul

 

It's not a "gay unfriendly" policy; it's an "unmarried unfriendly" policy. BMW doesn't extend benefits to anyone living together outside of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.

Paul

 

Hey, stop perpetuating the stereotype! Can't you order a full size pickup truck with a gun rack instead?

Paul

 

BTW, I said it was a "Gay Unfriendly" label, not policy.

 

Wikipedia has a nice summary:

Snark refers to a pejorative style of speech or writing. It could loosely be described as irritable or "snidely derisive"; hence, 'snarkish', 'snarky', 'to snark at somebody'. (The Urban Dictionary refers to it as a contraction of "snide remark".) It could less politely be described as 'bitchy'.

This word has Germanic origins and is etymologically unrelated to the imaginary creature in Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark.

 

Exactly....Furthermore it is within rights for a private company to promote the values that it chooses to promote, just as the GBLT community has the right to spread the word not to buy the product. the real biases show when just because one side or the other says that because you are for this or for that you are against the other side. Being gay does not mean you are against traditional family values, It just means you are gay....Right up until you start stomping your feet demanding everyone recongize your life style. And being for trad families does not mean you are against diffrent lifestyles...Right up until you go holding signs or protesting in dupont circle or something similar.
It is only when one expects to change anothers mind are they out of line. and that street travels both ways! Stand and be counted. Stand for what you stand for and let others stand for what they stand for...even companies!

 

Well said!

In fact, I'm so impressed I think I love you. Let's take our MINIs to the drive in and watch "Brokeback Mountain".

Speaking of Brokeback Mountain...this is a little old but still almost on topic

Paul

 

Fwiw, BMW is a public company.
http://www.hoovers.com/bmw/--ID__417...actsheet.xhtml

Snarky via Dictionary.com:

snark·y Audio pronunciation of "snarky" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snärk)
adj. Slang snark·i·er, snark·i·est

Irritable or short-tempered; irascible.

[From dialectal snark, to nag, from snark, snork, to snore, snort, from Dutch and Low German snorken, of imitative origin.]

I still feel that unless everyone can get married, including people who are gay, its not logical to lump the issue in with straight people who choose not to as in an "unmarried unfriendly" policy since I'm sure plenty of gay people would choose to be legally married if they could. It just doesn't make sense to equate them to me is all.

I haven't had coffee yet so I reserve my right to snarkyness

 

I didn't suspect "snarky" was a real word so I didn't plug it into dictionary.com. Thanks for the info!

Bob and Ted meet, and one week later they move in together. Tom and Sue meet, and one week later they move in together. You're saying that because straight people can get married, Tom and Sue should be treated differently than a gay couple? I disagree. Apply rules equally. Don't discriminate in one area to address discrimination in another.

I won't even touch whether or not there is any discrimination going on when it comes to marriage...in fact, I'm going to go back to lurking in this thread!

Paul

 

But put that years later, or any timeline for that matter - if Tom and Sue love each other and want to stay together for the rest of their life they can get married and thus reap the benefits - Bob and Ted do not have that option no matter how long they are together or any other factors. So how is that a level playing field or the same issue to put together? Tom and Sue adopt kids and Sue decides to stay home to raise them, or Tom's parent falls ill and Tom decides to stop working to take care of them, in either case Tom and Sue can get married and share health insurance among other benefits - Bob and Ted are SOL even if they are together 25 years and raise adopted kids, etc... See what I am getting at?

Okay I gotta go get some cawfee now.

PS: I ran across a top 10 gay car list apparently written by someone gay stating which cars where the most desirable. The 5 series was on there as the "Best Car for the Gay Professional" and the Mini Cooper was "Best Twinkmobile"

 

Here is where domestic partner benefits work for all. They treat both instances above the same. Bob-Ted and Tom-Sue are both considered domestic partners. Tom and Sue have an option to get married if they want, and can reap the benefits of their marriage. They might, however, not want to get married, for whatever reasons. Likewise, Bob and Ted might want to, but unless they live in MA (or the UK, Spain, etc, where same-sex marriage is available), this option is not available to them. DP benefits level the playing field and do not discriminate.

EDIT: I was NOT copying eVal's post above! We were just on too similar a wavelength.

Now I need some coffee.

 

Suuuuuuuure, you were reaping from my reaping and levelling in the same playing fields!

The sad/strange part is that whole hospital thing - unless you are married or related you can't get in to be with your loved one. I don't get that, people should be able to choose who they want to be with or speak for them in health or other matters.

 

I meant private as in not a government entity. I am aware that BMW is a publicly traded company. But ownership still lies with thousands of private parties. Which makes a signifigant diffrence when a discussion of "rights" takes place.

 

What forum did I stumble into?

I thought this was "MINI Talk."

There HAS to be a more appropriate place for this thread.

 

Esentially this is about the MINI and the marketing thereof.

 

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"


He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought-
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.


And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffing through the tugey wood,
And burbled as it came!


One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.


"And hast thou slain the Jaberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.


'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did grye and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


(I think there were some snarks in the illustrations. )

 

All this is good discussion and all ....BUT.....you guys do realize that its not really about anything more than money, don't you? Companies are dying (cough....GM) under the weight of "benefits" particulaly medical insurance. It costs them money to offer benefits for domestic partners. as long as they have no problem finding employees to come to work for them... there is no reason to offer those benefits...If and when it suits thier financial intrests to do so....they will. Very Few companies really decide to encourage or reward certain values based on principle...They are in buisness to make money ...thats it. Thats why for the most part only very large companies extend those benefits. They have huge HR needs that need filled.

 

^ Exactly!

 

I keep seeing a lot of posts lately where people are getting insulting and intolerant.
When I first joined NAM I really enjoyed the good discussions about Mini and seeing people enjoy them.
What has changed?

 

^

Yes, it's crystal clear now! I can just picture that snark!

The gay wheels campaign is aimed at people who feel strongly about the issue of gay (etc.) rights. AndyWSea proves that not all of those people would make their purchasing decisions based on this information... so I think our MINIs are safe! I can't think of too many successful consumer boycotts that involved decisions as "significant" as what car to buy. The only one that comes to mind is the boycott that influenced Arizona to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day. California's lettuce/grapes/Safeway boycott didn't really force shoppers to make difficult choices since for most people there were lots of alternative options, and besides it took a long time before the growers gave in.

P.S. to Greatbear: great to see you posting again!

 

I don't think the discussion has been particularly insulting or intolerant... so far. But I am surprised it hasn't been locked yet.

A little background for newcomers: political threads were banned from the Off Topic forum a year or two ago precisely because things had a tendency to get heated and degenerate into insults and intolerance.

 

You are right. I just came from reading this post, I think it affected me a little.
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=62849

Don't mean to cause problems. I like NAM and most users and I respect others opinions.

 

??? You mean a month ago?

Maybe spring is in the air time to water the grass Head to the beach Catch some rays and don't forget ....

 

yeah, I think as far as threads of this nature goes, people have been fairly kind....

So far...