American Multinational Oil Company Says 'no' To Homosexual Age

[jmjtina]

American multinational oil company says 'No' to homosexual agenda

 

This vote marks the 14th year in a row that the company has refused to cave in to the demands of gay activists for special rights for homosexuals.

ExxonMobil said it already prohibits "all forms of discrimination" and "believes the proposal is unnecessary."

 

 

[4588686]

:vomit:

[homeschoolmom]

The subject line really confused me... What is the "homosexual age"?

[Ice_nine]

haha I think it was probably supposed to be "homosexual agenda" and got cut off

[Brother Adam]

:vomit:

 

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I don't think they actually did this to make a statement.

[GeorgiiMichael]

This was a really disjointed article and didn't really flow. It was unnecessarily long and rehashed the main point at least 4 times. The quotes from people who have nothing to do with ExxonMobile seemed out of place and definitely didn't add anything of value to the content of the article.

 

1/10, would not read again.

[Basilisa Marie]

The proposal, voted down by 81 percent of ExxonMobil's shareholders on May 30 read, "The Shareholders request that ExxonMobil amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to substantially implement the policy."

This vote marks the 14th year in a row that the company has refused to cave in to the demands of gay activists for special rights for homosexuals.

ExxonMobil said it already prohibits "all forms of discrimination" and "believes the proposal is unnecessary."

 

 

1. Sounds like this is a non-issue, because Exxon Mobil is already an EEO, so it can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender. 

2. There's no such thing as a homosexual agenda, unless you're talking about the general collective feeling among non-heterosexuals that they should be given the exact same civil liberties as heterosexuals, but even then I think it's silly to act like it's a giant conspiracy.  

3. Sounds an awful lot like the people who were against the ERA because women are already afforded equal protection under the law and don't need a separate amendment. 

[Socrates]

Thanks JMJTina.  I'll make it a point to buy Exxon gas.

[jmjtina]

If it was a non-issue, there wouldn't be any point to amend it's policy.

 

It's not a conspiracy. They are actually pretty open about it, the LGBT president is VERY vocal about it. It's one thing to be discrimated against for your sexual orientation, another to bully people into silence or out of business for their beliefs. Quite frankly, Canda is a prime example.

 

And if you are "blind" to the agressive behavior of the LGBT community & it's bullying tactics, then ignorance must be bliss. That attitude is the very reason why they get away with such bullying, including the media.

 

Your welcome Socrates. I knew you'd be holding the fort down. :cheers:

[4588686]

Thanks JMJTina.  I'll make it a point to buy Exxon gas.

 

 

I'm sure your kids will appreciate your cavalier attitude about empowering a corporation that is actively destroying their future  :hehe2:

[4588686]

If it was a non-issue, there wouldn't be any point to amend it's policy.

 

It's not a conspiracy. They are actually pretty open about it, the LGBT president is VERY vocal about it. It's one thing to be discrimated against for your sexual orientation, another to bully people into silence or out of business for their beliefs. Quite frankly, Canda is a prime example.

 

And if you are "blind" to the agressive behavior of the LGBT community & it's bullying tactics, then ignorance must be bliss. That attitude is the very reason why they get away with such bullying, including the media.

 

Your welcome Socrates. I knew you'd be holding the fort down. :cheers:

 

 

I didn't know that there was a LGBT president.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I notice that the proposal was voted down by shareholders. Given that it is a publicly traded company that means that the vote itself represents the owners' collective wishes. Ownership which, you remember, you could be a part of for about $90, right this second.

 

That being said, the vast majority of their shares are held by other major corporations and mutual funds. Here is a list of all major shareholders.

 

So, taking all that into account, it is not really so much "ExxonMobil rejected such and such a proposal" as much as it is "The Vanguard Group, State Street Corporation, BlackRock Institutional Trust, etc., etc., etc., rejected such and such a proposal on behalf of ExxonMobil." 

 

At the end of the day it is not particularly relevant, but I do think it is worth noting for the sake of accuracy.

[Socrates]

I'm sure your kids will appreciate your cavalier attitude about empowering a corporation that is actively destroying their future  :hehe2:

 

So how exactly is Exxon actively destroying my kids' future?  

Is it by being insufficiently supportive of homosexuality, or is it the fact that they drill for oil?

 

Or is it some other secret plot I'm not privy to?

[Basilisa Marie]

If it was a non-issue, there wouldn't be any point to amend it's policy.

 

It's not a conspiracy. They are actually pretty open about it, the LGBT president is VERY vocal about it. It's one thing to be discrimated against for your sexual orientation, another to bully people into silence or out of business for their beliefs. Quite frankly, Canda is a prime example.

 

And if you are "blind" to the agressive behavior of the LGBT community & it's bullying tactics, then ignorance must be bliss. That attitude is the very reason why they get away with such bullying, including the media.

 

Your welcome Socrates. I knew you'd be holding the fort down. :cheers:

 

Yes, ignorance must indeed be bliss. :|

[Apotheoun]

 

2. There's no such thing as a homosexual agenda, unless you're talking about the general collective feeling among non-heterosexuals that they should be given the exact same civil liberties as heterosexuals, but even then I think it's silly to act like it's a giant conspiracy.  

 

"In reference to the homosexual movement, the letter states: 'One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (No. 9).'"

 

Interestingly the Church's Magisterium believes that there is a "homosxexual movement." The Church seems to believe that there is some kind of "agenda" in certain parts of society that is pushing the promotion of homosexual activity as normal. That said, Catholics must resist the forces of evil that are trying to destroy marriage and the family.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Yes, ignorance must indeed be bliss. :|

Pretending to to know what you are talking about must be bliss as well.

 

As I said in my previous post, the Church's magisterium has repeatedly said that Catholics are duty bound to resist the movement that is trying to promote homosexual activity as normal. How exactly did you get your Church Militant tag while being ignorant of what the Church teaches in connection with the homosexual inclination and homosexual activity?

[Apotheoun]

The text below is the Profession of Faith that Fr. Nugent and Sr. Gramick were required by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to make. They were required to make this confession because their own views on the homosexual inclination and on homosexual activity were not in conformity with the Church's Tradition:

 

 

 

With firm faith I believe that God, in creating human beings as male and female, has created them equal as persons and complementary as male and female. In marriage, they are united by God and become "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), in a union that is by its very nature ordered to the procreation and education of offspring (cf. Genesis 1:28) and to the good of the spouses (cf. Gaudium et spes 12, 48-51; Familiaris consortio 11-15; Mulieris dignitatem 6-7; Codex Iuris Canonici canon 1055; Catechism of the Catholic Church 371-372).

 

I firmly accept and hold that every baptized person, "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:27), is called to live the virtue of chastity according to his particular state of life; married persons are called to live conjugal chastity; all others must practice chastity in the form of continence. Sexual intercourse may take place only within marriage (cf. Persona humana 7, 11-12; Familiaris consortio 11; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2348-2350).

 

I also firmly accept and hold that homosexual acts are always objectively evil. On the solid foundation of a constant biblical testimony, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22, 10:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), Tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (cf. Persona humana 8; Homosexualitatis problema 3-8; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357, 2396).

 

I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that the homosexual inclination, though not in itself a sin, constitutes a tendency towards behavior that is intrinsically evil, and therefore must be considered objectively disordered (Homosexualitatis problema 3; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). I also adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that, while homosexual persons must be received with respect and protected from all unjust forms of discrimination, no one can claim any right to engage in homosexual behavior (cf. Persona humana 8; Homosexualitatis problema 9-10; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). Moreover, I also adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teaching that homosexual persons, by the virtues of self-mastery which lead to inner freedom, by prayer and sacramental grace and other forms of assistance, can advance toward Christian perfection (Homosexualitatis problema 12; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2359). 

 

[Apotheoun]

I have no problem saying that I assent fully to the CDF's Profession of Faith found in Post #18, and that is why I will always resist any and all attempts to legally protect behavior that no one has any conceivable right either to perform or promote. Sexual deviancy should not be a protected category in the laws of any state or nation. After all, the Church teaches that it is just to discriminate against a person when the individual in question is promoting immorality.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[4588686]

Pretending to to know what you are talking about must be bliss as well.

 

As I said in my previous post, the Church's magisterium has repeatedly said that Catholics are duty bound to resist the movement that is trying to promote homosexual activity as normal. How exactly did you get your Church Militant tag while being ignorant of what the Church teaches in connection with the homosexual inclination and homosexual activity?

 

The Church's magisterium has also made numerous comments about the reality of anthropomorphic climate change and the moral duty of grapple with the challenge.   :unsure: