|
On July 09 2012 19:55 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 19:13 Go1den wrote:
This should scare people regardless of their stance on gay marriage: the fact that Google thinks as a giant ass corporation that they can and should influence political decisions. Don't be fooled, they are doing this because they think it will benefit them finacially, not because they want to make politics. It's the same reason so many companies market themselfs as "green/sustainable/CO2 reducing/etc" despite it costing them money to be so. It's good for buissness in the end, not because they think it will save the world or because they want to force politicians to make laws to save the enviroment. This issue is basically the same, Google sees where the winds are blowing so to speak and coming out being for this it will only improve their image in the long run.
You're so bitter and cynical. You preach and shout a vision that you hold that is backed up by hate ( most probably ).
Also, just because I can't prove you're wrong, doesn't mean you're correct, if you're going to go there.
|
On July 09 2012 20:04 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 19:55 nihlon wrote:On July 09 2012 19:13 Go1den wrote:
This should scare people regardless of their stance on gay marriage: the fact that Google thinks as a giant ass corporation that they can and should influence political decisions. Don't be fooled, they are doing this because they think it will benefit them finacially, not because they want to make politics. It's the same reason so many companies market themselfs as "green/sustainable/CO2 reducing/etc" despite it costing them money to be so. It's good for buissness in the end, not because they think it will save the world or because they want to force politicians to make laws to save the enviroment. This issue is basically the same, Google sees where the winds are blowing so to speak and coming out being for this it will only improve their image in the long run. You're so bitter and cynical. You preach and shout a vision that you hold that is backed up by hate ( most probably ). Also, just because I can't prove you're wrong, doesn't mean you're correct, if you're going to go there.
Technically he's right; part of why they're doing this is because marriage offers financial benefits that gays and lesbians don't get.
Of course, that overlooks a whole slew of other benefits that come with the recognition of marital stat
Oh, not to mention that the entire point of this is that all the heterosexuals are getting these benefits anyways, meaning that gays and lesbians are being deprived of them.
|
New Zealand1176 Posts
google you rock! equality!!!!!!!!
|
I dont believe the benefits of marriage is everything those couple have in mind, usually there is a romantic side to it too.
This said, the hole point in those benefits are that the people get sooner married and therefore get children sooner.
The financial benefits are a good base to build a family on.
But we could make those marriages possible without giving those gay-couples the benefits until they actually adopt a child.
But in my eyes those hetero-couples would need to get pregnant first as well then.
Also I believe this is absolutely non-politic since its more of an religious question, and the influence of religion in the western world (except USA) is quite low.
|
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.
This is one of the stupidest statements i have ever heard. First of all the act of making children doesn't make it against nature. Your saying if a man or women is impotent that its the same thing as being gay. Second it isnt against nature if you do some research you'll see in all animals that get to a certain population, that gay ones start to come up. This is NATURES way of population control and in case you didnt know this world is not exactly getting smaller. Having a group of people who cannot propagate is a good thing for humanity as well as the fact that there are millions of kids looking for a good home. Please keep YOUR eyes open cause the words you just typed into teamliquid are total bullshit
|
On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting.
Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty.
I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers.
If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda.
|
New Zealand1176 Posts
On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda.
you may have a point. paedophilia was acceptable in ancient greece
|
i start liking google more and more
atleast they promote themselves really well
btw has jesusoursaviour posted here yet?
|
On July 09 2012 21:01 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. you may have a point. paedophilia was acceptable in ancient greece
And it's accepted in various Christian churches worldwide even today.
Edit: Err allegedly. Even though the claims aren't unfounded.
|
I often don't understand why people care so much about the love interests and the marriage behaviour of others. It's not like it influences them at all. Unless ofcourse you don't like them seeing on the public street. YEAH, we should forbid dogs to poop too.
|
On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda.
Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it.
|
On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda.
That's because people were marrying much earlier. If anything pedophilia has become more hated now than it ever was, because we're more aware of trauma and we aren't blaming the victim as much.
|
Nice to see that Google is doing something nice with all their money. ^^
I still wonder why they are doing it though. I don't see how they could benifit from this. Still nice though.
|
I think its quite dumb how people here cheer about on of the most influencial companies of the world getting involved in politics, just because they support this particular concern.
I hope this is not the beginning of the big companies meddling even stronger in politics. They should go about their business and otherwise stay neutral.
|
On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it.
For the mean time, I think we should all be able to agree that two adult men (or women) being in a loving relationship is somewhat closer to a 'regular' heterosexual relationship than it is to paedophilia.
And shouldn't your question of whether or not its right to 'leagalize love', as it were, actually start with heterosexual relationships and unions?
|
On July 09 2012 21:49 Redox wrote:
I think its quite dumb how people here cheer about on of the most influencial companies of the world getting involved in politics, just because they support this particular concern.
I hope this is not the beginning of the big companies meddling even stronger in politics. They should go about their business and otherwise stay neutral.
This is very true. Big business already has enough influence on politics, seeing it increase in a more open way is somewhat worrying to me.
|
On July 09 2012 21:18 Wortie wrote:
I often don't understand why people care so much about the love interests and the marriage behaviour of others. It's not like it influences them at all. Unless ofcourse you don't like them seeing on the public street. YEAH, we should forbid dogs to poop too.
Many people who are vehemently against homosexuality are latent homosexuals afraid that society won't accept them, and so they expound against it as forcefully as possible so as not to seem gay.
Here's a partial list:
-Larry Craig
-Ted Haggard
-Bob Allen
-Rick Santorum (this will happen)
|
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods.
|
On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it.
consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults
to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense)
|
On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods.
What the shit man?
How does gay marriage lead to free pedophilia and rapist social security?
See my above post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
