|
On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends.
What does that have to do with marriage? Honestly, the anti-gay crowd is so absurd it hurts. If a married couple can't have kids they don't "improve our global society"? What the fuck does that even mean?
|
On July 09 2012 08:15 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. I'd like to see a man and a woman alone on an island give birth to a newborn baby also. It would be a great reality tv show.
Hey we are stuck on an island, let's give birth to a baby so we have more to worry about, another mouth to feed, etc.. also unless we give birth to another baby that's of the opposite sex, there will still be no one for this baby to mate with, so doesn't really matter in the long scheme, unless we get off of course, which well.. why didn't we wait till we got home to have this baby ????
Cool for google btw.
|
On July 09 2012 08:25 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 08:15 redviper wrote:On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. I'd like to see a man and a woman alone on an island give birth to a newborn baby also. It would be a great reality tv show. Hey we are stuck on an island, let's give birth to a baby so we have more to worry about, another mouth to feed, etc.. also unless we give birth to another baby that's of the opposite sex, there will still be no one for this baby to mate with, so doesn't really matter in the long scheme, unless we get off of course, which well.. why didn't we wait till we got home to have this baby ???? Cool for google btw.
Its Adam and Eve propagating the human race through incest, not Adam and Steve propagating the human race through incest!
(Thank you smbc!)
|
On July 09 2012 06:46 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 06:36 DoubleReed wrote:On July 09 2012 06:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 09 2012 05:17 Smat wrote:On July 09 2012 05:05 farvacola wrote:On July 09 2012 05:04 Smat wrote:On July 09 2012 05:01 FabledIntegral wrote:On July 09 2012 03:31 darthfoley wrote:On July 09 2012 02:36 Smat wrote:On July 09 2012 02:31 xsnac wrote:
[quote]
10% gay ? are you getting out of house ? not want to be mean but i know 1 gay man out of 200 .
OP : google will just get more publicity i dont think they step in becose they rly care about gay marriage imo . Don't rely on your social circles to determine the amount of queer people seriously... A better experiment would be to think about your high school class, but oh wait you have no idea how many people are gay from your high school class. See the problem? my highschool class is around 2.5% gay i would say. of course it's not concrete but i'm quite aware of my surroundings. They probably aren't open. There have been many anonymous surveys done, with all of them pointing to around 7-10% of males being homosexual, and 4-5% of females. Those figures make sense considering it is becoming a fairly accepted fact that there are more full on gay men than there are full on gay women, of course that could be do to society's different treatment or inherent differences between female and male sexualities. What about full on rapists? I don't know, I imagine that almost all rapists are men so.. Wait...you don't think women can rape people? Or that they haven't? I think it was a joke, but I don't get it. Obviously there are female rapists. And even weird chauvinists who think that men can't be raped by women (even though it is a documented fact) would at least have to concede to the idea of lesbian rape (which is of course, also well documented). I didn't get the joke either if there was one. I was only thinking of a female raping a male which I imagine rarely happens. Female/female rape/sexual assault is probably more common.
Actually, according to the CDC's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, the numbers for male-on-female and female-on-male female violence are a lot closer than popular perception would have you believe.
If you do the math, ~1,003,000 men were forced to penetrate women (e.g. raped by women since the CDC's skewed definitions don't allow you to count men as rape victims), while ~1,246,000 women were raped by men.
|
On July 09 2012 08:26 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 08:25 BlueBird. wrote:On July 09 2012 08:15 redviper wrote:On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends. I'd like to see a man and a woman alone on an island give birth to a newborn baby also. It would be a great reality tv show. Hey we are stuck on an island, let's give birth to a baby so we have more to worry about, another mouth to feed, etc.. also unless we give birth to another baby that's of the opposite sex, there will still be no one for this baby to mate with, so doesn't really matter in the long scheme, unless we get off of course, which well.. why didn't we wait till we got home to have this baby ???? Cool for google btw. Its Adam and Eve propagating the human race through incest, not Adam and Steve propagating the human race through incest! (Thank you smbc!)
Duff: I wanna be Kyle. I knew this guy at camp. He was maybe 13. He got *two* girls pregnant, man. *Two* girls pregnant. Yea, Kyle. Who you gonna be?
John: Steve...
Duff: Steve.
John: Yeah.
Duff: OK, Steve.
John: OK, Kyle.
[John and Duff continue walking]
Duff: Wait.
John: What?
Duff: I wanna change. I wanna be Steve.
John: I'm Steve; You're Karl.
Duff: Kyle!
|
Thank God for Google!
I find it ridiculous that there's people on this planet that care about other people's love lives to the point where they have to actively make a contract illegal.
|
we must boycott google! yeah! lets go to that petition making website and do it! wait... whats it called. ah crap now i have to google it.
|
Interesting that a company is taking such an interest in a political issue. I guess they get marketing from it, but still, you'd think it would hurt them about as much as it would help.
|
On July 09 2012 10:03 FuzzyJAM wrote:
Interesting that a company is taking such an interest in a political issue. I guess they get marketing from it, but still, you'd think it would hurt them about as much as it would help.
Google is actually composed of people. Many of them care about such issues. Of course it wouldn't get forward at a company level if it didn't at least minimally benefit the company, but don't think that this is all just some fat cats sitting around trying to figure out how to best increase revenue.
|
Its not even a profit motive. Stupid discriminatory laws actually hurt the employees at Google (and at MS and Amazon who are also fighting for marriage equality) and that hurts productivity and so it actually hurts the entire company.
In other cases the law might drive people away from working for the company or provide an incentive for them to go work in a better location. And ofcourse smarter more educated applicants will respect google more for fighting for civil liberties and will be more likely to pick google as their employer of choice.
All in all, even if the bigots all boycott google (as if they could), it would still be a win for the company.
|
On July 09 2012 10:03 FuzzyJAM wrote:
Interesting that a company is taking such an interest in a political issue. I guess they get marketing from it, but still, you'd think it would hurt them about as much as it would help.
i think the idea that people choose their search engine based on views on sexuality kinda sums up this whole issue.
|
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
I would have to agree with this man. 100%.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Props to Google for being open about this stuff. If nothing else taking a stand makes their position (and any subsequent lobbying) clear. I also happen to agree that their is no logical reason why marriage should not be extended to include members of the same gender. If marriage can exist for a couple who never intend to have children and have no religious affiliation, why does their gender have anything to do with their right to get married?
The anti gay marriage alliance are trying to hold back a change that we know is coming. In the same way that race used to be an issue, sexual alignment will be a non-issue in the near future. You can see this by the desperate and irrational arguments put forward in this debate.
- It's unnatural -> Evidence of homosexuality in animals
- Marriage is about children -> People who never intend to have children can get married
- Why bother? There are other bigger issues -> This is a basic right for a section of the population. In addition the two are not mutually exclusive. You can help famine in Africa and legalise gay marriage.
- But religion.. -> Not the government's domian.
- It's just a word -> If the word is important to those already married who have no religious affiliation, why can it not be important to those who want to get married? Dumb argument
There are more arguments but they are all based on assuming that homosexuals are somehow different, other than their sexuality. This will change and trying to stop it is like trying to hold back the tide.
|
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
But with all the people like you who have no sex lives at all, how are you making children? Imo you're part of the problem with not making enough children. An important problem, what with the 7 billion people and whatnot. Now get out there and make some children! Save the species.
|
I support it because there is no rational, logical or meaningful reason to oppose it (imo), and I'm all for the progression of society...
But why do gays (and non gays for that matter) fight so hard for this "right to marriage" when it is so largely associated with and dominated by the same organisation that demonises and persecutes them?
EDIT: Not trying to be an ass btw, just wanna understand.
|
On July 09 2012 10:46 YouMake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
I would have to agree with this man. 100%.
You've not read much in this thread past that post have you?
|
On July 09 2012 10:55 Phenny wrote:But why do gays (and non gays for that matter) fight so hard for this "right to marriage" when it is so largely associated with and dominated by the same organisation that demonises and persecutes them?
EDIT: Not trying to be an ass btw, just wanna understand.
Because marriage isn't religious and the state gives married couples benefits.
|
On July 09 2012 07:57 Felwarrior wrote:
Sad day... google just lost a lot of my respect D:
Say what you wish... but until 2 men alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby or 2 woman alone on an island can give birth to a newborn baby (with no prior or post modifications or additions to their own newborn state)... until that happens I don't think condoning their position improves our global society.
Call me what you like, bash whatever I say... but the truth stands out on it's own.
Edit:: and no, this doesn't mean to treat those with this challenge like idiots or ostracize them in anyway... I have gay/lesb friends and I don't treat them any different than any of my straight friends.
Condoning their position actually improves our global society. By making homosexuality more acceptable, the odds that one of them will pass their genes on decreases as they will come out of the closet MUCH faster than before, and thus not reproduce with members of the opposite gender. (This is not my actual viewpoint, by the way. I do not want to wage a genetic war against homosexuals. I am just countering his logic)
Furthermore, there is no harm in letting them go about their own business. Heck, by letting them go about their own business, we would have to deal with less trouble from them, such as protests and gay pride parades. Furthermore, they could adopt children (which is always a good thing. There are more orphans than homes available) and bring some commerce to marriage and child-rearing related products.
Thus far, I have heard no reason to be against LGBT rights that is not either is based on morality (and thus is entirely subjective) or is based on faulty logic. Sometimes reasons are a combination thereof.
|
On July 09 2012 10:55 Phenny wrote:
I support it because there is no rational, logical or meaningful reason to oppose it (imo), and I'm all for the progression of society...
But why do gays (and non gays for that matter) fight so hard for this "right to marriage" when it is so largely associated with and dominated by the same organisation that demonises and persecutes them?
EDIT: Not trying to be an ass btw, just wanna understand.
Uhh... well first of all there are lots and lots of benefits attained with marriage. Some of these are state-level and some are at the federal level. Right now, even marriages recognized by states are not recognized at the federal level due to the Defense of Marriage Act. This means that spousal benefits for veterans (you know, those people fighting for the country) are not given to homosexuals. There are also things like hospital visitation rights and such.
Secondly, do you ever want to get married? Simply guessing: you probably do. Homosexuals are not any less sentimental about marriage. They have the same desires of the American family of having a nice house in suburbs with some children blah blah blah.
Thirdly, religions do not have a monopoly on marriage. They never have. People have nonreligious marriages all the time in America. It's not even that unusual.
|
On July 09 2012 10:55 Phenny wrote:
I support it because there is no rational, logical or meaningful reason to oppose it (imo), and I'm all for the progression of society...
But why do gays (and non gays for that matter) fight so hard for this "right to marriage" when it is so largely associated with and dominated by the same organisation that demonises and persecutes them?
EDIT: Not trying to be an ass btw, just wanna understand.
Honestly I think it is about being treated equally and having society accept that your love with your partner is no less than someone else.
You're a fellow aussie so this might have some meaning for you. A while ago Penny Wong (Minister for Finance who is a lesbian in a civil union with children) was on Q&A with Joe Hockey. Joe outlined his position that Marriage was between a man and a woman and should stay that way. When asked how that made her feel Penny's response was
"Hurt. But I know what my family is worth."
To me that pretty sums up what this fight is about. Recognition that your relationship, your family, your life, is just as valuable as anyone else. Right now the government judges that not to be the case. If there was no role in government for marriage, than there would be no reason to fight for gay marriage. The fact that the country as a whole (through their government) has sanctioned marriage, makes it an important issue. Whenever this argument comes up I go back to that quote. No-one should have to defend the basic value of their family, especially not from the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
