|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.|
|Another step towards equality....|
|By Fusion on 2012-07-08 23:14:26|
This is not merely a political maneuver; supporting civil rights makes EXCELLENT BUSINESS SENSE for Google. Inclusive work environments (not just by company policy but state law) naturally attract the greatest pools of talent. A prospective employee is likely to opt for residing and working wherever their family unit will be best protected. |
>>>>"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."<<< ;<
First, sexual orientation is not a private thing. Try telling that to the suicidal high school boy who gets shoved into his locker, beaten, and threatened daily merely because he is *perceived* to be gay. People don't go out into the streets and shout "I'm heterosexual" because that is always assumed by and for the majority of persons. Minorities (e.g., PR, African, Chicano, LGBT, etc.), on the other hand, have loud conspicuous pride festivals to raise and SUSTAIN awareness... sending a collective message that they "won't be ashamed" and celebrating an aspect of their identity. Visibility of these festivals help support youths who happen to be growing up in less hospitable climates.... they also help younger generations internalize acceptance and thus actually do address the core of descrimination.
As for wanting others to believe you're "normal," the 1950s Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis tried the "we're just like you" approach. The problem is, de-emphasizing your points of difference only helps substantiate those traits inferiority and disfavor. We're all different, and being different *IS* normal... we as a people need to celebrate our differences, and stop listening to rhetoric and bigotry disguised as faith. Hats off to Google for giving their collective support to a worthy cause!
|- Score: 2|
|The word marriage...|
|By Fusion on 2012-07-08 23:27:09|
The psychological value of the term "Marriage" transcends religion; we've adopted its value as a society. Consider these gems from Judge Reinhardt's (9th circuit) ruling that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage... they're witty and really help put the term into perspective: |
1. "[M]arriage is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name 'registered domestic partnership' does not."
2. "We are regularly given forms to complete that ask us whether we are 'single' or 'married.' Newspapers run announcements of births, deaths, and marriages. We are excited to see someone ask, 'Will you marry me?', whether on bended knee in a restaurant or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see 'Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?'. Groucho Marx's one-liner, 'Marriage is a wonderful institution...but who wants to live in an institution?' would lack its punch if the word 'marriage' were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare's 'A young man married a man that's marr'd,' Lincoln's 'Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory,' and Sinatra's 'A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's too late.'"
3. "Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie."
4. "In order to explain how rescinding access to the designation of 'marriage' is rationally related to the State's interest in responsible procreation, Proponents would have had to argue that opposite-sex couples were more likely to procreate accidentally or irresponsibly when same-sex couples were allowed access to the designation of 'marriage.' We are aware of no basis on which this argument would even be conceivably plausible."
5. "There is a limited sense in which the extension of the designation 'marriage' to same-sex partnerships might alter the content of the lessons that schools choose to teach. Schools teach about the world as it is; when the world changes, lessons change. A shift in the State's marriage law may therefore affect the content of classroom instruction just as would the election of a new governor, the discovery of a new chemical element, or the adoption of a new law permitting no-fault divorce: students learn about these as empirical facts of the world around them. But to protest the teaching of these facts is little different from protesting their very existence; it is like opposing the election of a particular governor on the ground that students would learn about his holding office."
|- Score: 2|
|RE: The "old" new thing|
|By dimosd on 2012-07-08 23:29:20|
You missed the irony. People at the time were raised to believe that bisexuality (for both men and women), slavery and men being superior to women were nature's law and perfectly ethical. |
Which proves that being pro-gay has nothing to do with civil rights and "open-minded-ness"... just follow the herd!
|- Score: 1|
|By Hiev on 2012-07-08 23:31:23|
Is all about pushing Obama, Google supports Obama, Obama suports gay marriage, so do the math. |
Obama push for gay marriage was well, a dumb strategy that is costing him votes, Google just want to revert that.
Edited 2012-07-08 23:35 UTC
|- Score: 2|
|RE: A few thoughts|
|By dimosd on 2012-07-08 23:33:31|
While I object to gay marriage, I don't have a problem with civil partnership. Civil partnership is simply about getting tax benefits from the state etc., sure, no problem. |
Edited 2012-07-08 23:43 UTC
|- Score: 3|
|"Lovely", now how about the single and asexual?|
|By curio on 2012-07-09 00:45:21|
"Lovely", now only the single and asexual will be discriminated against! |
One would think that rational, well educated and technically savvy individuals such as frequent this site, would be able to drill down to the real core issues in this debate. Apparently not as is evidenced by the bulk of the knee jerk/parroting commentary's.
1)The core issues cited by gay marriage advocates have nothing specifically to do with sexual orientation, but does have all to do with being single and or asexual. The disparities between married men and women vs. single people.
a) What? Single and or asexual people don't have the same need for some kind of assignable next of kin so that their dearest friend can visit them in a hospital or to take care of their affairs while they're in there etc..?
b)What? Singles and asexuals don't ever need to combine their resources to buy real property together?
c)What? Two singles and or asexuals can't adopt a child in common to provide an otherwise orphaned child a good and stable home?
d)What? Life long singles and asexuals who've cohabited and cared for each other shouldn't have the the same survivorship benefits as all other people of whatever/any sexual orientation?
e)What? When all is said and done are singles and asexuals going to have to declare themselves to be gay in order to get justice? That will surely skew any statistical data.
2)Other than their desire for governments to legitimize their personal lifestyle choices, which isn't the government's job, gays and lesbians have no unique legal issues that can't be applied to all heterosexuals, singles and or asexuals generally. Therefore, you see, that attaching sexual orientation to these arguments is selfish and self serving. Everyone should have these same rights, and a means should be devised to do it fairly and properly.
1)From the governments standpoint, all unions or instances of lifelong/long term cohabitation, regardless of sexual orientation, should be no more than civil union contracts entered into willfully.
a)Leave the word marriage to the millennium's old one male-one female unions. To do otherwise interjects consternation into an otherwise rational, reasoned argument (see 2 above).
b)Essentially, within some broad and reasonable limits (let's keep it in the species, leaving the sheep and horses in the barns), what are now marriage prenuptial agreements should in and of themselves be the entirety of the civil union contract. (I personally would love to see this if for no other reason than to see what kind of outrageous civil union contracts the various and sundry religion's/church hierarchy's would come up with for their followers).
c)Benefits for surviving spouses needs to be readdressed. Here in the u.s.a. the social security system was instituted at a time when most women didn't need to work outside the home. Instead, raising their children to be decent citizens within their own family's belief systems. At that time, without these benefits blue collar worker's wives would be left destitute.
Means testing (not giving handout's to people who don't need it) would be the simplest solution but not the only one that is viable (brevity prevents me delving deeper).
I personally could give less than a speck on a gnat's anus what consenting adult do to get their sexual yummy's (leave the children alone). I do care however, when real core issues such as these are sidelined and obfuscated by politically correct hyperbole and rhetoric that leaves the broader issues, involving justice for everyone undressed .
Too, it's likely that this kind of controversial advocacy falls far afield of Google's corporate charter, and that some of their stockholders will probably sue over it.
|- Score: 2|
|RE: Comment by marcp|
|By Anonymous Penguin on 2012-07-09 00:53:08|
You're muslim? catholic? gay? lesbian? hetero? AWESOME! I wish you best life you can possibly get being yourself.
That could be true if nowhere in the world you'd be discriminated for being one the above. People get killed for being Christian (and of course for being gay, see Iran), discriminated for being catholic (China), or Muslim (in many Western country). So it is not that easy.
I understand that you couldn't care less and you want to be left alone, but that is another matter.
|- Score: 1|
|RE: "Lovely", now how about the single and asexual?|
|By dimosd on 2012-07-09 01:05:59|
|*This* is a comment worth of a technical (ahem) site like Osnews. Too bad Osnews discriminates against my ability to vote for you.|
|- Score: 1|
|By medgar1976 on 2012-07-09 01:07:58|
|Though I think it is important for individuals to be involved in social issues, I don't think businesses should be pushing a social agenda. Google should be concentrating its energy on making a better Android OS, improving internet searching and web apps, and be pushing the boundaries of cloud computing. Leave the social agenda to individuals, politicians, and social activists. I don't think it is Google's responsibility to make the world any type of utopia or its opposite. How does this issue in any way help google expand its markets, improve its products, or services? It doesn't. It is like reporting that a basketball team is on a mission to push for space travel to the moon by 2020. They have no real logical connection. It is crazy what makes for news these days.|
|- Score: 1|
|RE: A few thoughts|
|By kwan_e on 2012-07-09 01:39:28|
> First, I don't believe this is something Google should be getting involved with. They're a technology company, not an advocacy group. |
IBM used to be a technology company. They were also the first company to officially adopt an equal opportunity program and made it a condition of doing business in the racist south. They then went on to LGBT policies after the disastrous handling of Lynn Conway.
One of the major forces in dismantling apartheid in South Africa was economic boycotting.
|- Score: 3|