Slashdot Mirror
Google Launches International Campaign For Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
Apple and many other tech companies have offered benefits to same-sex couples (and sometimes made them a sticking point) for quite some time now, but Google is taking its position of inclusion for sexual minorities outside the company itself; the company has announced an international campaign to promote legal marriage equality for same-sex couples, called "Legalize Love." According to CNN's version of the story, while this represents Google's policies overall, the campaign will at first "focus on countries like Singapore, where certain homosexual activities are illegal, and Poland, which has no legal recognition of same-sex couples." dot429 quotes
Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe of Google, speaking in London Saturday at a summit where the initiative was announced: "We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work."
Also at CNET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_network
How about "legalizing love" when it comes to 68-year-old men wanting to marry 7-year-old girls as well? Or is that somehow not OK whereas the most unnatural thing in the world is?
See corporations are people without gender. They want to be able to marry each other.
Then they can file a joint tax return and have children.
Now Slashtards can finally come out of the closet (and their mom's basements). Squeeee.
Also: First Post.
Captcha: Mooned (like goatse)
Google should not be meddling with this. What happened to 'not be evil' This reeks of evil.
Possibly worth noting that on Saturday in London was World Pride 2012, and representatives from Google were among the groups in the parade (photo)
Google needs to start this campaign in Afghanistan, Iran and downtown Cairo. See how far they get there.
Would a homophobe rather Google or Bing someone anyway?
The US still has a long way to go for full LGBT equality. I can understand stuff like trying to stop stoning of homosexuals in countries where it is illegal, but as for the same-sex marriage fight, it hasn't even been won on the home front yet. I hate to call it a war... but why expand the territory of a war when you're still losing battles in disputed territory you're trying to occupy?
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Google promoting same sex marriage is great and all, but what about ladyboys and the so called third gender? No, you cannot lump it under homosexuality as it's a different issue. Same sex marriage is old thing, everyone should fight for people's right to be whatever gender - or a third gender - if they so want to. Even on Slashdot I always get modded down when I mention ladyboys, and I hope not this time because this issue needs to see some daylight.
revolting.
abusing their position to try and warp our society.
homosexual behavior is deviant behavior.
Corporations should stick to their core mandate, and not get into 'social engineering'.
Be it a 'worthy' cause or not, its not their place to stick their noses into it and 'pick sides'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why shouldn't gays have the right to live in misery like the rest of us?
Marriage is a religious rite, witchcraft and the substrate for it is a couple of differing genders. Please don't make secular legal union into this unholy superstitious sourcery.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
As far as the government is concerned marriage should be treated like any other contract. They should have no say in the contents. If there is a breech take it to court and let a jury decide. Then purge out of law any benefits or tax considerations based on material status and just people as individuals.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I'll be the last to say that Google can do nothing wrong (and avoid using their services as much as I can for privacy reasons), but it's things like this that in my eyes put them a step above their competition ethically. Do we see Facebook do this? Microsoft? Apple? Same thing with withdrawing from China rather than censoring on behalf of their government, and a bunch of other examples.
Corporations aren't people, but as Google demonstrates, they can occasionally show their human face.
"We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work."
And what about those employees who (for whatever reason) are against same-sex marriage? If Google wants to support their employees does Google also support those people? Or are they just lying about wanting to support employees - Google only wants to support SOME employees who have corporate-approved beliefs and it wants to advocate against views by other employees?
If Google is anti-anti same-sex marriage then it could create a hostile environment who hold views that aren't corporate-approved, no?
the company has announced an international campaign to promote legal marriage equality for same-sex couples, called "Legalize Love."
FTA:
Some news reports said the 'Legalize Love' campaign would push for worldwide legalization of same-sex marriage, but a Google spokesman called that inaccurate. The campaign's focus is on human rights and employment discrimination, he said.
Google has spoken out before on same-sex marriage issues, most prominently when it came out in 2008 against California's "Proposition 8" ban on same-sex marriage.
2 Percent of Americans Identify as Gay
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm fine with Google being free to promote homosexuality as long as I am free to disagree with them and promote heterosexuality. Vive la difference!
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Butt out. Persons decide how and why and when human society will change, adapt, and evolve. Google the company is not a person. It has no standing and has no voice in this debate. Its employees, yes. Its owners, yes. But Google the company should stick to selling ads and STFU.
polygamy
Just wanted to say that... if wages are as stagnant for the next 40 years as they have been for the last 40, then having more than 2 adults living together may become a necessity if you wish to have a household with children.
A variant of this has already happened with so many of the under-30 crowd being out of work and having to live with their parents.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I generally support gay rights, but I've always been a little meh on the idea of gay marriage. What I'd really like to hear is for a gay marriage advocate to explain to me why polygamy should be illegal yet gay marriage should be legal. If we should let two guys or two girls get married because they really love each other and want to be together forever and all of that, then why shouldn't we let a guy marry two or three or more girls (or whatever other combination you can think of) if they all really love each other and want to be together in that way? It isn't something completely absurd like marrying dogs or cars or something - there have been and still are many societies where polygamy is normal and accepted and widely practiced. So why not?
I don't reply to ACs
Now what are they going to do? Sexual slurs were their primary ammo against iPhone users.
Why? WHY? Why no one seems to make the next natural step??? ...i wonder what it would be!!!
Step 1: One man with One woman
Step 2: One Man with One Man, or One Woman with One Woman
Step 3: One Man/Woman with Many Women/Men.
Step 4: Many Men/Women with Many Women/Men.
Step 5:
God says man who lie with man is an abomination. Dollar bill says "In God We Trust". So what is the fucking problem? It makes so much sense to make it a law that says God is full of shit. Enjoy sucking on Satan's cock for an eternity, sinners.
So if people who are getting married, they get married by the government. If they want to undergo a ritual somewhere else, like in a church, that can be done separately.
That is how it is done in at least Belgium and Germany and probably other countries as well.
It should then be extremely easy to allow same sex marriage as government should not discriminate on gender.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
There is *no* reason that "marriage" needs to be defined in law at all.
Just let people love and live however they see fit. If:
- two men
- two women
- a man and 5 women
- a woman and 3 guys
- a group of people
- or any other combination
choose to live together, so be it. Who is anyone to say how someone else can love and choose to live with one or more other people?
Let religions define marriage each in their own way, if they want to--but preserve the separation of church and state.
Let everyone regardless of religion, live with whomever they want.
There is *no* reason to have to declare your relationships to the state. Seems very silly to do so, and is really just another form of tax:
- marriage license
- marriage certificate
- lawyers bills
- divorce filing
- divorce decree
- alimony
(note I don't include child support in this list--a separate matter entirely)
Why bother with all that. Just cohabitate. Stay together happily, or split up and go separate ways. Don't bother filing and updating your status with the government each time your life changes. It's none of their business.
Why doesn't Google send a delegation to Riyadh or Tehran?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
the campaign will at first "focus on countries like Singapore, where certain homosexual activities are illegal
Mountain View is 13,680 km from Singapore --- the cultural distance can be far greater still. The question then becomes whether pressure for change from so distant a source will be ignored or resisted on instinct alone.
The same set of religious laws that prohibit and call two of the same sex 'an abomination' also call two consenting Heterosexual adults marrying if they happen to be of the wrong religion.
It's called the Un-equal Yoking Doctrine. There are still Christian Fanatics calling for it's enforcement today and say that a Jew and a Christian, or a Atheist and a Christian should not be permitted to marry because of issues of unequal Yoking.
This has been seen as a way of promoting racial apartheid in marriage as well. (in previous centuries, whites and blacks were supposed to be unequally yoked.) But that's not what the doctrine actually says.
Christians don't want to just prevent homosexual marriage from taking place, they want to say what heterosexual couples can marry as well.
and than, religion...
this can only get better...
Why does no-one ever promote equality for *everyone*, including single people, and campaign to just abolish marriage altogether? Then all these silly arguments go away.
Marriage is certainly not about love in any legal sense. In terms of family law in most jurisdictions, marriage has almost completely lost its original meaning anyway. (Marriage was about inheritance, and everything else simply followed from that. Not saying that that's good or bad, just that when people talk about 'traditional' marriage, that's what they're referring to, whether they realize it or not.)
Poles come to the UK to work and earn money, go back to Poland...and then come back to the UK because now Poland is a backward country for them. The Polish Government needs to start thinking like a modern, liberal Western democracy because it is in the interests, not only of the younger generation, but of the old and backward who will benefit if the economy improves. Sometimes you just have to kick people around the head (metaphorically) for their own good.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It's a multinational corporation that happens to have its headquarters in one of the States of the USA which has a pretty good record on progressive values. Poland has a much smaller population than California. Google is not responsible for what happens in Washington.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It causes 100% of divorce, makes children objects to be fought over and causes depression and bankruptcy - just to note a few problems.
It should be banned!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Calling it "gay marriage" it's actually a problem, here in Argentina, the existing marriage law was modified to remove gender specific words, and that was it, the conservative and catholic oposition presented an alternative project to call it something like "civil union", thus opening the doors to all kinds of differentiation. During the discussion the proposal was informally refered as "marriage for all".
every country can improve
by your logic, no one can ever criticize any other country in the world outside of their own, because their own country still has problems and always will
fucking bullshit
i can criticize any country i want, including my own, and it's not hypocrisy. because i am first and foremost a human being, concerned with human rights, and with a human conscience. nationalist silos may confine your thinking, but not mine
don't think the parameters of your own self-chosen provincialism has any bearing on me
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I love the way well-meaning corporations jump on the gay bandwagon which affects just 1-2% of their workforce and ride roughshod over the beliefs of their Jewish, Muslim and Catholic staff.
I wish that Google would 'butt out'.
This campaign will do nothing but antagonize 'the right' in the US. The GOP will hate us even more.
I'm transgendered. I've known that since the mid 1960's. I've been dressing ever since but I'm realistic enough to realise that I can never live as a woman. How many 6ft 7in 280lb women do you see in real life. So I dress in my own home with the full approval of my wife of 30years. She knew about me before we got serious. It is a shame that more people can't seem to understand that there are many amongst us that really were born into the wrong body.
My brain thinks like a woman. That is why my wife loves me so much. She sees me as not only her husband but as her best friend in whom she can confide in just like another woman.
If I were to come out in many places on this planet, I'd risk being killed. Pure and simple.
This campaign by Google will do nothing to change the opinions in a good few counties in this world. Their fundamentalist beliefs preclude them from accepting us. In their eyes, we are worse than alduterers. They get stoned to death so what would happen to us.
I'm all for gay couples having the same kinds of rights as straight couples, but I don't understand why they have to use the term marriage. There are all kinds of examples where very similar products can only be called by a certain name under certain conditions...champagne versus sparkling wine is a good example. Why can't they keep marriage as referring to a man and a woman, like hundreds of years of tradition, and simply have a legally identical "civil union" or some other name? I don't see why they need to debase the term marriage to achieve their ends.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
I'm sorry for that, white catholic heterosexuals have really bad PR this days. I would say we are screwed.
FIRST POST!!!!!!! At last!! Wow... I'm giddy. I finally got one! Been trying for years. =^.^=
It makes sense to fix gay marriage first, because that's so quick and easy, compared to legalizing polygamy in marriages.
All you that go ra ra google are useful idiots. Google/NSA are exploiting LGBT's to steer the conversation about google away from privacy.
And onto a topic which not even the AC's have taken the devil's side.
Really google, work first, play and have fun later.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Corporations should not be involved in things like this... These are independent, sovereign nations and while I may agree to compaigning against capital punishment for minor offences I totally disagree with foreign corporations trying to redefine what marriage is in given country...
Why do gay folks want to get married? that is a union between a man and a women. Why don't they get garried and have garriages? ... stick with garriages and getting garried.
Should lesbians then get larried? - no doesn't sound right
I want to have and keep a cute sweet little girl as my own.
Pedo marraige with little nice girl.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29, in the original hebrew, shows that concent of a young girl (even if such can be given), is not necessary for keeping a girl, in the Deuteronomic Law tradition. (Nor her father's concent either): Rape a young girl virgin who is unespoused: keep her and pay her father.
Marriage is a joke nowadays anyway. I think it's time for the Government to just get out of the practice entirely. If 2, 3, 5, or 99 people want to call themselves married then fine, whatever. It's become a joke anyway. People marry "forever" then 6 days later they're humping someone else and getting a divorce. In modern society it's become a pointless joke. The State should give it up and get out of the business. Let people call themselves husband and wife or buddy and buddy or whatever they want to. I don't care if they marry a fire hydrant just leave the State out of it and let's move on to real problems like the trillions of dollars of debt we're rolling up.
n/t
It came from the Pro-Life league because Google is anti-family.
Most religious folks with which I have spoken seem only to care that the LGBT community does not get to call it marriage because to them marriage is a religious term. The LGBT community wants nothing to do with the religious definition and only wants the privileges the state bestows to H couples. I think a lot of religious types think the LGBT is trying to subvert their religion by using the term marriage.
I see two solutions to this issue.
Just a reminder, since I obviously missed it too, to change the subject of your comment when replying in a thread like this.
Modifying the biologically-oriented meaning of marriage to 'people who love each', is not a move towards equality. Its simply a stupid, illogical, unscientific change to the contents of a legal and social contract. Are there things that need to be changed for equality? Sure. That has nothing to do with this illogical, pandering idea.
If it's not working as intended, then you should provide some evidence of that.
In my 2 minutes of research I found this on Wikipedia: of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007, 9 murders and 2 rapes were considered hate crimes. That doesn't seem like it's being over-applied.
Not if they can marry little girls of a generation younger and more numerous than themselves.
I'll make my choice by NOT using any of their products. I will not be using an Android phone I will not use google (haven't for a while anyway). Google has a right to do what they want, and I have the right to do what I want. Pretty cut & dry if you ask me. I don't believe in homosexual marriage, as I believe that the intention of marriage, at its BASIC level is for procreation. The term marriage, has been diluted over the decades to the point that a lot of people don't even get married any more. But, my belief system says that marriage is between a man & a woman. I don't push my views on anyone. If someone comes up and asks my opinion of something, I tell them, but I don't protest, I don't carry signs, I don't try to tell someone else how to live. If more people did that, the world would be better off. We have a minority of people trying to tell the majority of people how to live.
Making other people do what you want to do
Preventing other people from doing what they want to do
Sending other people the bill for your life choices
Nobody would have a legitimate concern about gay marriage if the gay community and its supporters would stop trying to force their morality on other people.
The Obama administration blew it for gay marriage with his contraceptives mandate. It is abundantly clear from places that have already permitted gay marriage that those who oppose it themselves (even if they don't give a shit what you do), are going to be forced to materially support or even participate. A photographer from Arkansas was successfully sued because she didn't want to offer her services at a gay wedding. That's the kind of stupid that keeps gay marriage illegal.
If a business wants to turn you down for what you think are stupid reasons, who cares? That's a business opportunity for someone else.
We have fights in this country because it's no longer good enough to have the freedom to do what you want to do, you want to oppress others so they have to do what you want to do.
Work Safe Porn
I need no law or court to claim the rights of this earth,
nor is it a duty to disclose this notice
17 girls and I
Not Me.Not You,But At Her Service
As soon as a problem with this earth is reported to The Crown,
no-one holds any rights.
The Crown cannot move and all order are carried from one
location held by The Crown.
It is against the law to use the word homosexual on Crown documents except herein
homosexual is against the law
It is against the law to turn someone into a fantasy figure
At Her Majesty's Service
I'm not gay. If 2 guys or 2 girls want to get married to each other, fine. It doesn't hurt me, it doesn't help me, it doesn't make any difference in my life. Everybody needs to stop making such a big deal about the whole issue! WHO FUCKING CARES???? Seriously people, how do same-sex marriages affect ANYBODY outside of the marriage?
Did you have a group in mind that's being underserved due to insufficient political power?
Why would the government pass a law prohibiting people from eating meat? Besides, there is no law prohibiting gays from getting married. There is, or has been, an understanding that marriage, at least in the US, has always been between a man and a woman. That is not the same as the government prohibiting an action, but instead an attempt of a minority to redefine what has tradtionally been the understanding.
Whether that is right or wrong is open to debate. But if we ever want a solution to a complex social problem, we can't be confusing the issue by inserting unrelated concepts (such as prohibiting) into the actual reality.
So lets see the Govn't decides to put it's 2 cents into all the "unnecessary wars" and the coorporations seem to follow suit in putting their 2cents where it doesn't belong.
on another note....
interesting that when gay or lesbian get together and still want a child it still requires the OPPOSITE SEX. Think there was a reason for this and also stated in the bible(if you actually believe in G-d(which i do)). yes even if your Baptist or Catholic or what not the commandement still exists.
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 18:1-30 ...
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.
(This would include the aspect of same sex whatever and when it was spoken to PEOPLE OF ISRAEL it included woman not to lay with woman. )
Oh but wait you say that's the old testament and we have a new covenant and we go by the new testament
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(Sexually Immoral is those that would cover same sex. Man or Woman)
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills or you can purchase property jointly, etc. Marriage is just one way to confer the right of inheritance, it is not the only way, nor is it even a good way (if it was, there wouldn''t be all those case going to probate court). For having a legal say while one is alive, there is the durable power of attorney and for medical decisions a medical power of attorney. With the exception of purchasing something jointly, all of these "rights" granted through the normal means are easier to rescind than through the dissoultuion of a marriage. Even heterosexuals realize that marriage is not the best way to grant rights which is why pre-nuptual agreements have become so popular. Marriage is simply a civil construct to grant a package of legal rights instead of having to grant them individually.
We shall legalize gay money. I mean gay marriage.
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills
Yes, they exist, they also don't do all the work necessary. Children can't be handed down via will without court permission. That isn't required with marriage. Also, wills can be challenged, but marriage is almost never challenged, though in some high profile cases, marriage and the will are contested. And my father had a will and it's in probate court, so apparently a will isn't a good thing either.
There are hundreds of rights conferred via marriage that are in one easy and common contract. Some of which aren't transferrable, as hospitals allow in "family" only in many cases, and legal power of attorney apparently doesn't suffice for all such regulations.
Learn to love Alaska
Why are we still care about the opinions of 2000 year old texts that were so obviously made up by a bunch of iron age goat herders? Why don't we make our laws according to rationality, according to the evolved morals of our modern times, not according to the morals of a bunch of so called "holy books" that openly promote slavery, misogyny, and genocide? Why don't we accept equality for all?
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in the hebrew shows that concent of the little girl is not neccessary.
Little girls make good brides.
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills
Yes, they exist, they also don't do all the work necessary. Children can't be handed down via will without court permission. That isn't required with marriage. Also, wills can be challenged, but marriage is almost never challenged, though in some high profile cases, marriage and the will are contested. And my father had a will and it's in probate court, so apparently a will isn't a good thing either.
There are hundreds of rights conferred via marriage that are in one easy and common contract. Some of which aren't transferrable, as hospitals allow in "family" only in many cases, and legal power of attorney apparently doesn't suffice for all such regulations.
Will or not, you will end up in probate court. Only way around that is to set up a trust. It doesn't matter if you are married or not. For children, if you are not a biological parent, you do not have a legal "right" to the children, unless you previously adopted them. Again, the same situation whether homosexual or heterosexual, married or unmarried. A court, of course, in such cases can grant custody, but again, that is no difference depending on your status. As for hospital visitations, if you have medical power of attorney you cannot be refused, unless the patient refuses to see you. A medical power of attorney actually gets you more rights than marriage. Durable power of attorney handles most other legal issues and also grants more rights than marriage.
The hundreds of other so called rights, if they aren't covered by the above (wills, adoption, durable power of attorney and medical power of attorney) probably aren't actual rights granted through the marriage contract, but instead perceived rights, which aren't really rights, but customs. In short, whether gay or straight, if you don't want to get married or aren't allowed, to have the same rights as marriage, 1) draw up a will or purchase thing jointly or form a trust with both as the trustees, adopt any children involved in the relations, both partners sign a durable power of attorney for the other one and both sign a medical power of attorney for the other one. What doesn't that get you? Well, you can't say you were married, but you do have all the same legal rights.
Just because you see nothing wrong with a loveless marriage, I would prefer to marry the person I love and cherish and want to spend my life with. That person would be another male. I am currently not allowed to do that by law. And yet, you see no inequality there? You are sorely blinded by ignorance.
I didn't say there was nothing wrong with a loveless marriage. However, it is not up to the government to promote love. There is nothing stopping you from spending your life with the person you love and cherish, whether male or female. I live in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage. It does not change one way how I live my life with my partner (who is the same sex, btw). The government can define marriage however they want, it is just a silly word without any real meaning. Legally, which is what rights are about, my partner and I have all of the positive benefits and rights of marriage without any of the negative ones and getting the various paperwork was a lot cheaper than a wedding. Why in the world would I want to change that? My partner and I are secure in our love for each other and don't need outside affirmation for it. Our friends are supportive, why do we care if we can say we are legally married or not? Love is not required for marriage nor is marriage required for love.
The solution to that is simple - more gay marriage
And gay sex. Lots of gay sex.
Make love, not war.
So really, the gays and advocates of gay marriage should be very pro-polygamy (polygyny specifically) as that will result in more available men for the gay community.
Don't believe what anyone tells you - sexuality is much more fluid than commonly asserted.
Would also help to reduce the overpopulation problem.
ironic captcha: killjoy
The hundreds of other so called rights, if they aren't covered by the above (wills, adoption, durable power of attorney and medical power of attorney) probably aren't actual rights granted through the marriage contract, but instead perceived rights, which aren't really rights, but customs.
None of them are "rights", just automatic contracts. If you draw up your own contract that mimics marriage, it would likely be legal, but still not recognized by custom.
What doesn't that get you? Well, you can't say you were married, but you do have all the same legal rights.
So you do have the right to not testify against your "spouse" included in that? How about being able to file jointly married? I'm glad there are *no* rights missed out in your little scheme. Not to mention that getting married grants them all for about $100, but doing so separately costs thousands of dollars (I got a quote on an uncontested adoption for $2000, where if it were contested - and any relative could do so - it'd be $10,000 or more). And you'd have to use trusts with rights of survivorship to get close to the marriage level of seamlessness. The odd thing about marriage (And why polygamy doesn't work in the legal framework) is that both people own 100%. You don't own something 50/50 with them. Both people are legally sole owner of joint property. Either can, without permission of the other, sell it or otherwise dispose of it. Because it's theirs 100%.
Polygamy, which is always tossed up as the "why not" when someone talks about gay rights, would make an already confusing thing so confused that nobody would understand. If couple 1 jointly own everything, and she marries another guy (who is married to two other women), then the 5 of them all own everything the other owns. Even if one disagrees, their "share" is diluted. And if there's a dissolution of the marriage, how do things get split? For that reason alone, polygamy should be illegal, though in practice it was much easier, as it was almost always polygyny (one man, multiple wives) which simplifies things, as it also generally went hand in hand with reduced legal protections for women.
Learn to love Alaska
Unilaterally deciding something like this on a federal/national level is wrong and illegal, just as was the income tax, Obamacare, No Child Left behind, etc etc.
These issues aren't defined in the constitution as powers of the federal government and thus should have and should be left to the states and their subsets to decide.
Or browser error...but in the US at least, this isn't something that should be decided by the federal government, just like many other things. Our retarded federal government has a long history of deciding things for everyone in it's bounds instead of following the constitution (the law of the land!) and allowing states and their subsets to determine rules and laws regarding things not specifically delegated as powers of the federal government.
In the US at least, this isn't something that should be decided by the federal government, just like many other things. Our retarded federal government has a long history of deciding things for everyone in it's bounds instead of following the constitution (the law of the land!) and allowing states and their subsets to determine rules and laws regarding things not specifically delegated as powers of the federal government.
The campaign is not about same sex-marriage, something clearly stated in the article:
"Some news reports said the 'Legalize Love' campaign would push for worldwide legalization of same-sex marriage, but a Google spokesman called that inaccurate. The campaign's focus is on human rights and employment discrimination, he said."
Regarding the rights of LGBT people in these countries, there are so many other human rights violations in the world today which I consider to be more pressing & urgent (sex slavery, child labour, child soldiers etc). It'd be great to see Google campaigning against some of those aswell. (Or is this only about supporting issues which directly affect their own employees?)
Damn it, Google, could you please stick to being consistently evil or consistently good? This constant flip-flopping just leaves everyone unsure whether to get out the ticker tape or the flaming torches.
I would be more impressed when Google tries to right the wrongs they have done.
Looks like a plan to steal some of major part of Apple user base...
As I was reading through the first hundred or so replies it slowly dawned on me...most of you /. readers apparently support the idea of homosexuality being somehow morally acceptable. I have personally noted in my admittedly rather short 40 years on this planet that our country (USA) has been on the path of moral stagnation (at best) for at least as long as I've been alive. Most certainly longer.
What I find discouraging is that apparently many intellectuals are blindly equating their so called societal advancement with what is actually moral regression. This is probably not the best forum for intellectual discussion of religious issues, but many of you are entirely correct: homosexuality is an entirely religious issue. Bottom line: God said it's wrong so it's wrong. Period.
Should I be made to feel like a mentally incompetent hillbilly for adhering to that belief? Fortunately for my faith I do not. I have used my God given intellect to make a determination based on a combination of my life's experiences, my studies, and of course my faith. At it's simplest that consists of: looking out the window + Israel for the first, reading the bible and other religious works for the second, and well, faith is faith.
But perhaps more on the subject: do we really want to start tearing our morality away, strip by strip, until we descend into something like what the Roman Empire (and no doubt many others before it) became? There is a reason for morality, and there are consequences for ignoring or purposefully avoiding it.
Touchy subject.
Take care.
> Google Launches International Campaign For Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
Google is founded and owned by jewish people, genetically jewish people, even if they care not about the religion of their fathers and father's fathers. The jewish God, whom jews (and muslims and christians) claim to be the one and only God of Abraham, clearly prescribes death by stoning for those who "sleep with man, like it is usual to sleep with a woman" and those who copulate wih animals. It is spelled out word by word in Moses's fifth book of laws.
One must wonder if the Holy Name will punish the Google founders, just like he punished Steve Jobs? Man has the free will to contravene God, but the consequences are terrible and may extend all the way to the seventh generation of descendants as has been clearly stated in the Book. Lord has stated that he is jealous in his love for mankind and terrible in his anger against sin. Better obey his commandments, because neither mega-wealth, nor political power can stop the angel His Mightyness sends to strike with the flaiming sword!
The daily prayer states: Hear o' people of Israel, the Almighty is our god, the Almighty is the one and only! The Holy Name has granted exceptional high IQ, wisdom, financial wealth and unmatched worldwide influence to his chosen nation. Is it too much that he asks complete refrainment from unnatural acts of sexuality in return?
And we Americans sit here scratching our heads wondering why people in other countries hate us....
... for trying to destroy our countries...
Nobody has a right to FORCE themselves into the living space of anybody else. 'Gays' are only pushing for this bullshit because they are jealous freaks, who hate normal people, who have normal lives, and normal relationships, and marriage. Marriage means a man and a woman. Doesn't matter how much you freaks try to FORCE the rest of us to go along with your insanity and perversions, it won't change.
Notice how 'gays' are so 'popular' that they have to FORCE this onto the majority, who clearly don't want it. I'd be sacked from my job on the spot if I said ANYTHING against 'gay marriage', or anything negative about any 'gays'. How nice of you! And you wonder why most people can't stand you, little tyrants. Did I mention that you were far more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals?
I generally support gay rights, but I've always been a little meh on the idea of gay marriage. What I'd really like to hear is for a gay marriage advocate to explain to me why polygamy should be illegal yet gay marriage should be legal.
This is a classic troll argument: he assumes that gay marriage advocates believe polygamy should be illegal, and then tries to paint them as hypocrites, in order to deflect attention from his own anti-gay marriage beliefs. All of that ignores the fact that most gay marriage advocates are also fine with legal polygamy (provided laws get updates, as you and other posters note).
If Google really cared, it would start by helping curbstomp Proposition 8 in its own back fucking yard, and focus in its home fucking country first, one would think.
Fuck you, Google.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Nice job guys. You didn't read the article before posting:
> Some news reports said the 'Legalize Love' campaign would push for worldwide legalization of same-sex marriage, but a Google spokesman called that inaccurate. The campaign's focus is on human rights and employment discrimination, he said.
The amount of attention this topic receives in our society shows how great a quality of life we all have right now. We live in good times
Had to ask.
One thing I like about Fox News is it is LBGT-Free!
Don't you think...? Or don't you?
This post doesn't belong here.
What? "Wrong" is a matter of opinion, to be sure, but "illegal...just as was the income tax"? That's...amusing.
Taxation is defined as a federal government -- specifically, Congressional -- power in Art. I, Sec. 8 ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"). There are limits in Art. I, Sec. 9 that require that direct taxes must be apportioned in accord with the census ("No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken"), but an exception for income taxes was created by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.")
I have no love for google. They are using advanced tax evasion techniques including the Irish double and Caribbean tax havens combined with aggressive tax exclusions in countries they operate in to avoid paying tax. Yet these folks think they have the right to set the poo political agenda?
How can you respect a company who is bankrupting the societies they operate in and whose owners are products of the freedoms and opportunities offered by this country, yet not returning anything back to the country except a political agenda which if it passes does zip to make even their home state more competitive? If anything google should perhaps pay back to society and help make sure schools become world class instead of closing down. They pay no taxes internationally as well. 2.4% tax rate in 2010, while they got to park their corporate jet on Moffet air naval station which is not open for civilians through another loophole.
I personally think these guys should pay their fare share b get to have an opinion about anything. Its ideas like this that kills countries; google only gets to benefit from the USA and never pay back.
I get the google guys strategy, cloak themselves in a campaign which people feel sympathetic towards in the home market so they won't be attacked by the one percent movement.
It does not change one way how I live my life with my partner (who is the same sex, btw).
Yes, it does, actually. What do you think would happen should one of you die? Do you think the other will get the same benefits that a straight married couple would get? Absolutely not.
Why in the world would I want to change that?
And who the fuck are you to decide what other people may want? Who the fuck are you to say that, since you're fine without marriage, no one else should have it either?
If we are going to enforce every prohibition in the book of Leviticus through civil law, things are going to get interesting.
On immigration, resident foreigners must have all the rights and privileges of native-born citizens. (Lv 19:33-34 "When a foreigner resides among you, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.")
On the labor-relations front, we need to outlaw monthly, biweekly, and other pay schedules -- employees must be paid daily, on the same day they work. (Lv 19:13 "[...]. Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.")
On the fashion front, we need to outlaw blended materials. (Lv 19:19 "[...]. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.")
Also on the fashion front, we need the government to regulate hairstyles. (Lev 19:37 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.")
Even more on the style front, we need to outlaw tatooing. (Lev 19:38 "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.")
You can't just focus on the one prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 and ignore the rest (Lv 19:37 "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD.")
Speaking as someone who has lived outside the hot bed of the liberal North American I can tell you this will not make Google more popular.
Actually the reaction will be - who the fuck does this Yank company think it is to tell us what to do.
You wonder why America is so hated in the world: here is a perfect example.
And it won't make a jot of difference.
Google isn't promoting homosexuality, they are promoting equal rights for homosexuals. They aren't the same thing, any more than promoting equal rights for racial minorities is the same thing is promoting people deciding to be racial minorities.
You are, of course, free both to promote heterosexuality and to do what is actually parallel to what Google is doing, which would be promoting equal rights for heterosexuals.
Of course, the thing with equality is that promoting equal rights for group X is exactly the same thing as promoting equal rights from group defined as not-X.
Google did oppose Prop 8 for most of the same reasons cited for the new campaign.
Google is over stepping its bounds. They should stay focussed on making better products and not mess around with lame things like same sex marriage. Are they after brownie points with minorities now, have they stooped low enough to play the games of politicians ? This is disappointing.
If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?
And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?
Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?
Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"? Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?
Perhaps someone can explain why they want to shame others for their hate or homophobia when they themselves needed to advertise and promote their own "pride" well before anyone knew about gay pride?
ONE LAST POINT/QUESTION.
Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?
Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.
If the government comes out against incest, is that sticking their nose in other people's business? Is that the government opposing "free love"?
Historically, that's not really true. Marriage historically has been about property rights, first and foremost, which are clearly within what is understood in the modern world as being part of the function of civil government. Its usually had both what, from a modern perspective, are "civil" and "religious" trappings, because the whole idea of a crisp boundary between religious institutions and civil government is extraordinarily modern.
So let me get this right...... here's company in a country that is dire straights:
The US is almost bankrupt and owes trillions of dollars to us in the rest of the world because it continues to live beyond its means. ....... and Google thinks it is a good thing to start telling other more successful countries what to do, that somehow, they must accept America's crappy values.
The unemployment rate is above 8%. The worst since the depression.Economic growth is only slightly above 1%
The country is led by the most incompetent president in history chosen for the colour of his skin and not his competence.
A president that lost his law license for lying, but this is hidden by the so-called media in the US
The country can no longer even send a man into space except by catching a lift with the Russians
It is bottom of the league for math and science education (25th to be exact). It excels only in the Dunning-Kruger category (true, check it out).
Tech companies rely on overseas skills because of the poorly educated workforce in the US
More than half of post graduate places in the US are filled with foreigners because US students are so poorly educated
US has the highest per capita prison population in the world
Invading Mexican peasant cannot be stopped and have already taken Southern California
The US has lost a war to a bunch of lawless Pathans in Afghanistan
6 billion people hate the US so much for exporting its decadence that they are prepared to die to kill Americans
Truly only mad crazy liberal Americans out of touch with the world could dream up such a thing. Instead of dealing with real issues closer to home the libs start worrying about gay marriage. Time to get real America. Time to get real Google. You are the laughing stock of the world. No one listens to you any more.
Realistically about 300 million condone gay marriage across the world. 6.7 billion don't. Guess who is going to win out in the end. Let's vote.
The National Organization for Women’s long campaign for same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on its face. Same-sex marriage has been the foremost long-term goal of the National Organization for Women (NOW) since January 1988 when feminist leader Sheila Cronin issued this mandate to feminists: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.”
Feminists made feminist marriage their top long-term goal twenty-five years ago and invested tremendous resources in it, because they intend to convert marriage into a feminist-controlled government enterprise and subordinate the rest of America to fund it.
Feminist marriage is structurally designed to destroy equality. It establishes three classes of marriage, each with vastly different reproductive, social, and economic rights and protections under Constitutional law depending on the sex(es) of the participants.
Feminist marriage is a three-way contract between two women and government. Most women will have children, and few women can afford or will go to the extreme of using artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. Government is the automatic third party collecting “child support” entitlements for children born in these marriages.
Children will be born of extramarital affairs backed by welfare guarantees and child support entitlements. Feminist marriages are automatically entitled with many tax-free, governmental income sources for having children that hetero marriage cannot have. Of course, gay men are at the back of the bus and have to spend large sums adopting -- economically marginalizing them to the edge of society.
Feminist marriage is a marriage between any two women and the welfare state. It constitutes a powerful feminist takeover of marriage by government, and places the NOW in the position of dictating government policy as a matter of “feminist Constitutional rights.”
Any company supporting same-sex marriage is supporting the feminist institutionalization of American government as we know it. Those who believe in equality MUST uphold heterosexual marriage because it is the only marital arrangement guaranteeing equal economic, social, parental, and political rights.
David R. Usher, President
The Center for Marriage Policy
http://marriagepolicy.org/2011/11/why-same-sex-marriage-is-unconstitutional/
It's amazing how far culture has come. Homosexuality didn't become federally legalized in America until '03 o_O Now everyone is trying to make a big push like it's the new hip pop thing. But _every_ trend has its end. So my question is after this, then what? If the argument, "that's just how I am", is going to make changes worldwide, then that same argument will work the same for incest, pedophilia(psychiatric disorder) :O, necrophilia, zoophilia, ect. The only reason it hasn't is because some people haven't fallen off the band wagon far enough yet, but they’re getting there.
I don't believe in hating someone because of what they do, but for the love of GOD, leave it in the bedroom.
Why does government need to give us a permission slip to be considered married? It's insulting. Marriage is a private contract.
Being left in peace to do whatever floats their boats in the privacy of their own homes, with whoever wants to be involved, that's a reasonable expectation. "Recognition" - whatever the hell that is - is not.