| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Google launches worldwide campaign to legalise gay marriage |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-07-08 17:54:33 |
| Fantastic initiative by Google. Anna Peirano details: "Google is launching a new campaign called 'Legalize Love' with the intention of inspiring countries to legalize marriage for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people around the world. The 'Legalize Love' campaign officially launches in Poland and Singapore on Saturday, July 7th. Google intends to eventually expand the initiative to every country where the company has an office, and will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist." As proud as I am of living in the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, it's easy to forget we only did so in 2000. Also, it's about time the large technology companies of the world started using their power, reach, and money to do good. Hopefully, this initiative will transcend company boundaries, uniting them behind a common, noble goal. |
|
| RE: Gay 'marriage' |
| By WorknMan on 2012-07-08 18:44:09 |
|
> please don't call Gay relationship a marriage. I keep hearing people say 'you can't change the definition of marriage'. Well, why the hell not? Words change meaning all the time. For example, even the term 'gay' doesn't exactly mean what it used to. As for gay marriage itself, with all of the REAL problems we have in this world, I think it's ridiculous that we're even having this debate in 2012. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if gays want to marry their doorknob. None of my business. Since straight people have done such a horrible job protecting the 'sanctity of marriage' over the years, I say let the gays have a shot at it. Surely, they couldn't do any worse? |
 - Score: 4 |
| RE: Gay 'marriage' |
| By Morgan on 2012-07-08 18:44:49 |
|
*sigh* And so it begins. Thom, I applaud your bravery in posting this item to OSNews, and I hope we don't see too much bigotry and hate like the comment above me was full of. I have a feeling I might lose some "friends" here, but I think Google is doing a great thing with this. I can't wait to see it come to the States. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Gay 'marriage' |
| By franjozen on 2012-07-08 18:45:49 |
| Don't you think that what you consider is the definition of marriage lost some of its 'original' meaning when divorce was accepted? You know, "Marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman!", well yes, and it's supposed to a lifetime too. |
| - Score: 3 |
| A few thoughts |
| By darknexus on 2012-07-08 18:47:37 |
|
First, I don't believe this is something Google should be getting involved with. They're a technology company, not an advocacy group. More importantly, I have another idea on how to deal with this mess. We don't need to legalize gay marriage, nor any other type of marriage. What we need to do is to separate the concept of Marriage and that of civil partnerships. Marriage, by definition, is a religious observance and therefore should be controlled entirely by your religion, if you have one. That means that the concept of "gay marriage" as it is commonly referred to would be dependent on which religion you are a part of. A marriage, however, would not gain you the same type of benefits as a civil partnership. I would define this concept as what marriage can give you now: right to visit at any time in hospitals, joint bank accounts, etc. These two would be by no means exclusive, but nor would they be connected. A civil partnership could be between two (or more, if that's what you want) people be they men, women, or a combination. Marriage would then be entirely outside the domain of your government and only observed within your church or religion. I think that would neatly solve this problem once and for all, assuming we can get the religious conservatives who think that faith should control everything out of our way. |
| - Score: 25 |
| RE: A few thoughts |
| By dylansmrjones on 2012-07-08 19:09:46 |
|
Agree. Sums up my opinions pretty well. Imagine 4 men entering a group civil partnership with 7 women, with all 4 men and 7 women 'marrying' each other. Men with men and women, and women with men and women. That's going to one heck of a partnership :p |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: A few thoughts |
| By Luke McCarthy on 2012-07-08 19:09:51 |
| Excellent idea. This whole issue is really a bunch of nonsense and this would put an end to it. |
| - Score: 4 |
| Comment by marcp |
| By marcp on 2012-07-08 19:11:55 |
|
Now, I don't get the whole thing. I don't see literally *any* connection between tech and people of the same sexual orientation other than the fact, that they can be workers at Google or other tech company. I don't think it's needed, actually. Sexual orientation is a private thing. People don't have to go to streets and shout out "I'm gay", just as they don't go to streets to shout "I'm heterosexual!". To me parades and this whole scream is unnecessary noise. I understand that some people are just not tolerant, but you can't change them this way. They won't believe you are normal [just like them] if you're gonna dress like a crazy man shouting some rediculous things unrelated to the whole problem od the actual discrimination. Now, don't get me wrong: I have absolutely nothing against lesbians, gays, transsexuals, transvestites and other walks of life. I just like sane, reasonable discussion, logic and general sense, not a scream, fights, parades, beatings, etc. World would be a beautiful place if people could only hold their shit close to their hearts, not their face. You're muslim? catholic? gay? lesbian? hetero? AWESOME! I wish you best life you can possibly get being yourself. But please, let me live in peace in harmony with others by not making me distracted with your pointless over-expression of uncumbered mind. Speak out your problems, your strenghts, but do it like a civilized human being. It touches both "sides" of the "problem". |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Gay 'marriage' |
| By darknexus on 2012-07-08 19:25:19 |
|
> Marriage doesn't need to be defined. It is a natural and biological truth. In point of fact, it is not a biological truth in any way, neither in the evolution of humankind nor in our modern age. I need food to survive. That's a biological truth. If marriage were a biological truth, this debate would literally not be possible. Please learn to separate your religious views from facts. Marriage was originated by a group of people to tell other people how they need to live their life as a method of control. I'm not saying marriage itself is the method of control, just that it's part of the larger scheme (namely religion) that was instituted in order to keep control over a large population by a smaller one. That concept has persisted to the point that some people believe it's inviolate. It's not. There are very few "baisic truths." The rest are made for humans by other humans and are no more a natural part of our make-up than nose piercings. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Comment by marcp |
| By darknexus on 2012-07-08 19:28:47 |
|
> Enforcing homosexuality, legalising homosexual marriages etc. is a discrimination against majority composed of normal people. Wow, either you're just trolling or you're a bigot in the worst sense of the word. Descrimination indeed? As if letting two other people (no matter their gender) get married prevents you from doing so? I can't make up my mind whether you actually believe something as ridiculous as that or whether you're just trying to stir the pot. |
| - Score: 4 |
| Censorship?? |
| By Morgan on 2012-07-08 19:48:01 |
|
Is it me, or is there some pretty heavy handed censorship going on here? I posted a reply to a very bigoted and negative "gay marriage isn't marriage" comment. Now both comments are missing, along with a few others that were on both sides of the issue. Thom, if you're going to post a hot topic like this and then delete entire threads while leaving similar discussions intact, what's the point of even putting the story up? For the record, I'm 100% in support of what Google is doing, and my deleted comment had no foul language, no extremist views, no name calling or trolling or other crap. The gist of what I said was "I'll be glad when this initiative comes to the States". It bothers me not just that my comment was deleted, but that two others that highly disagreed with me were too. If this is no longer an open discussion forum, if you're going to start randomly deleting posts that are not offensive, or even ones that are but are dealt with by the other commenters, you may as well just delete my account along with it. I'm truly disgusted with you right now, Thom. |
| - Score: 5 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |