|
On July 12 2012 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 06:34 IamPryda wrote:On July 12 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 05:19 IamPryda wrote:On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups. Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better. I can't think of a single argument that is the same for polygamy and gay marriage other than "Marriage is between a man and a woman" which is an assertion, not an argument. And any libertarian-minded person would argue that people should be able to enter into nearly any contract they'd like with one another, including polygamy. As far as what is acceptable and what is not: Consent is the obvious modern principle to base marriage laws on (so issues where consent is ambiguous is where this becomes ambiguous). You're saying we need to draw the line somewhere, but that doesn't mean we just draw it arbitrarily because we need a line. You actually need some logical reasoning behind it. That's my point no matter where u draw the line it will be arbitrarily drawn because boundaries are always being pushed in every aspect of life. I used polygamy as an example not because it's anything like gay marriage but the law is applied to both in the same way, in that they are both Against the law and for no definitive reason other then thats the way it has always been. So who draws this new line saying now gay marriage Is ok? I think the reason this is such a hot button issue is because even open minded people who have no prejudice towards the gay community Still have mixed feelings on the subject of marriage. No. Why is the line arbitrary? What part of 'consent' don't you understand? Consent is not arbitrary. And quite frankly an open minded person with no prejudice towards the gay community would be apathetic toward the subject of gay marriage. And apathetic means pro gay marriage, because the opinion would be "Eh, if they want to get married, let them get married, sheesh. What do I care?"
So, you want to say someone with no prejudices bases his decisions on indifference, that means in your eyes you should never question your prejudices and follow blindly? Whose behavior is more apathetic?
|
On July 12 2012 06:34 IamPryda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 05:19 IamPryda wrote:On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups. Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better. I can't think of a single argument that is the same for polygamy and gay marriage other than "Marriage is between a man and a woman" which is an assertion, not an argument. And any libertarian-minded person would argue that people should be able to enter into nearly any contract they'd like with one another, including polygamy. As far as what is acceptable and what is not: Consent is the obvious modern principle to base marriage laws on (so issues where consent is ambiguous is where this becomes ambiguous). You're saying we need to draw the line somewhere, but that doesn't mean we just draw it arbitrarily because we need a line. You actually need some logical reasoning behind it. That's my point no matter where u draw the line it will be arbitrarily drawn because boundaries are always being pushed in every aspect of life. I used polygamy as an example not because it's anything like gay marriage but the law is applied to both in the same way, in that they are both Against the law and for no definitive reason other then thats the way it has always been. So who draws this new line saying now gay marriage Is ok? I think the reason this is such a hot button issue is because even open minded people who have no prejudice towards the gay community Still have mixed feelings on the subject of marriage. Gay marriage cannot be wrong because no one is harmed by it. No reason exists why any number of consenting (the keyword here!) adults should not be able to enter a contract.
There is nothing arbitrary about it, the line is drawn at contracts/relationships where one or more parties do not consent. If an open minded person has mixed feelings on the subject of marriage, he isn't openminded.
|
wow you fucken sick people who support this. yeah go suck another man's dick.
seriously.
|
On July 12 2012 07:36 chaosftw wrote:
wow you fucken sick people who support this. yeah go suck another man's dick.
seriously.
At least put some effort into trolling.
I really don't see why anyone cares if gay people get married. I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how gay marriage hurts anyone besides the feelings of bigots.
|
On July 12 2012 07:51 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:36 chaosftw wrote:
wow you fucken sick people who support this. yeah go suck another man's dick.
seriously. At least put some effort into trolling. I really don't see why anyone cares if gay people get married. I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how gay marriage hurts anyone besides the feelings of bigots.
yes gay marriage should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone. wanna suck my dick bitch?
User was banned for this post.
|
On July 12 2012 07:54 chaosftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:51 SnipedSoul wrote:On July 12 2012 07:36 chaosftw wrote:
wow you fucken sick people who support this. yeah go suck another man's dick.
seriously. At least put some effort into trolling. I really don't see why anyone cares if gay people get married. I have yet to hear a convincing argument about how gay marriage hurts anyone besides the feelings of bigots. yes gay marriage should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone. wanna suck my dick bitch?
it's no hurting. but it's fucking sick.
|
On July 12 2012 07:36 chaosftw wrote:
wow you fucken sick people who support this. yeah go suck another man's dick.
seriously.
You're an idiot.
Seriously. I have no further words to describe you.
|
On July 12 2012 07:25 BillClinton wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 06:34 IamPryda wrote:On July 12 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 05:19 IamPryda wrote:On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups. Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better. I can't think of a single argument that is the same for polygamy and gay marriage other than "Marriage is between a man and a woman" which is an assertion, not an argument. And any libertarian-minded person would argue that people should be able to enter into nearly any contract they'd like with one another, including polygamy. As far as what is acceptable and what is not: Consent is the obvious modern principle to base marriage laws on (so issues where consent is ambiguous is where this becomes ambiguous). You're saying we need to draw the line somewhere, but that doesn't mean we just draw it arbitrarily because we need a line. You actually need some logical reasoning behind it. That's my point no matter where u draw the line it will be arbitrarily drawn because boundaries are always being pushed in every aspect of life. I used polygamy as an example not because it's anything like gay marriage but the law is applied to both in the same way, in that they are both Against the law and for no definitive reason other then thats the way it has always been. So who draws this new line saying now gay marriage Is ok? I think the reason this is such a hot button issue is because even open minded people who have no prejudice towards the gay community Still have mixed feelings on the subject of marriage. No. Why is the line arbitrary? What part of 'consent' don't you understand? Consent is not arbitrary. And quite frankly an open minded person with no prejudice towards the gay community would be apathetic toward the subject of gay marriage. And apathetic means pro gay marriage, because the opinion would be "Eh, if they want to get married, let them get married, sheesh. What do I care?" So, you want to say someone with no prejudices bases his decisions on indifference, that means in your eyes you should never question your prejudices and follow blindly? Whose behavior is more apathetic?
What? I don't understand your connection at all. I was just trying to deal with the 'neutral individual' if you will. I don't see how you get 'follow blindly' from apathy. Apathetic people don't follow things, and we assumed there was no prejudice.
Indifference is the default attitude toward other people's behavior (that doesn't affect you). Unless you're gay, gay marriage is other people's behavior.
|
There are much more important things to spend money on
|
On July 12 2012 09:02 PiPoGevy wrote:
There are much more important things to spend money on
Google has a lot of money
|
On July 12 2012 09:02 PiPoGevy wrote:
There are much more important things to spend money on
Google's employees already have enough food and ready access to clean water - guaranteed source of food within a few metres of their desks for programmers. They have homes and even if those become temporarily unavailable the offices are equipped with sleep pods, showers and lockers. They get rewarded for their efforts with a generous salary. Their healthcare needs are well covered in every jurisdiction, and they are set up for a good retirement. They are selected on the basis of talent, and their productivity is linked to their happiness as well as their sense of fulfilment in their work. Gay marriage and reduced prejudice in society would make a great number of staff happier and better able to focus on their work.
Why would Google not also use their money to prevent their employees from being discriminated against?
|
On July 12 2012 09:02 PiPoGevy wrote:
There are much more important things to spend money on
Great point, Google's head financial adviser.
|
On July 12 2012 08:43 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 07:25 BillClinton wrote:On July 12 2012 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 06:34 IamPryda wrote:On July 12 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 05:19 IamPryda wrote:On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups. Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better. I can't think of a single argument that is the same for polygamy and gay marriage other than "Marriage is between a man and a woman" which is an assertion, not an argument. And any libertarian-minded person would argue that people should be able to enter into nearly any contract they'd like with one another, including polygamy. As far as what is acceptable and what is not: Consent is the obvious modern principle to base marriage laws on (so issues where consent is ambiguous is where this becomes ambiguous). You're saying we need to draw the line somewhere, but that doesn't mean we just draw it arbitrarily because we need a line. You actually need some logical reasoning behind it. That's my point no matter where u draw the line it will be arbitrarily drawn because boundaries are always being pushed in every aspect of life. I used polygamy as an example not because it's anything like gay marriage but the law is applied to both in the same way, in that they are both Against the law and for no definitive reason other then thats the way it has always been. So who draws this new line saying now gay marriage Is ok? I think the reason this is such a hot button issue is because even open minded people who have no prejudice towards the gay community Still have mixed feelings on the subject of marriage. No. Why is the line arbitrary? What part of 'consent' don't you understand? Consent is not arbitrary. And quite frankly an open minded person with no prejudice towards the gay community would be apathetic toward the subject of gay marriage. And apathetic means pro gay marriage, because the opinion would be "Eh, if they want to get married, let them get married, sheesh. What do I care?" So, you want to say someone with no prejudices bases his decisions on indifference, that means in your eyes you should never question your prejudices and follow blindly? Whose behavior is more apathetic? What? I don't understand your connection at all. I was just trying to deal with the 'neutral individual' if you will. I don't see how you get 'follow blindly' from apathy. Apathetic people don't follow things, and we assumed there was no prejudice. Indifference is the default attitude toward other people's behavior (that doesn't affect you). Unless you're gay, gay marriage is other people's behavior.
There is no 'neutral individual', that would mean you are projecting objectivity on a subject. Every attribute of an individual is more or less reciprocally connected/related to memories or affects, for instance if your mother had blond hair you are to some extent related in some way (dependent on your association with your mother) to individuals with that attribute. In can be in an obvious way or more subtile one. These relations are nothing different but prejudices because you implicitly extract conclusions out of them with arbitrary predicative power, thats what Einstein meant when he said "common sense is the sum of our prejudices". By not questioning their rationality (indifference) you follow them blindly (heteronomy).
|
i think Google needs to be less political.
|
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i think Google needs to be less political.
Well Google disagrees.
On July 12 2012 22:34 BillClinton wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 08:43 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 07:25 BillClinton wrote:On July 12 2012 07:11 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 06:34 IamPryda wrote:On July 12 2012 05:45 DoubleReed wrote:On July 12 2012 05:19 IamPryda wrote:On July 11 2012 21:20 BillClinton wrote:
There often arises the statement that we have more important things to resolve. When we look back in time these same statements came when people started to question apartheid laws, I doubt some sane person would argue about these changes now.
There is nothing more important than to protect our democratic principles when it comes to still legitimated oppression of minority groups. Excluding the ultra zealous right wing relgious nut jobs who just flat out hate gays. Is it not fair to say that there is a good percentage of the population who feel that gay marriage is not a civil right for plenty of reasons? At some point there has to be a limit to what can be called legal no matter a persons beliefs. For instance polygamy is illegal, is it a violation of a polygamist civil rights to not have his marriage recognized to his second wife? Now there are reasons we outlaw polygamy but u could use some of the very same agruments used for legalizing gay marriage as for legalizing polygamy. At some point a line has to be drawn not let me be clear I am not saying this 2 things are the same or that the line needs to be drawn at either one I am just trying to state at some point it is fair to ask the question of what should be acceptable and what should not in society. Democratic principles are important and keeping an open mind is important but it works both ways and sometimes people forget change is not always better. I can't think of a single argument that is the same for polygamy and gay marriage other than "Marriage is between a man and a woman" which is an assertion, not an argument. And any libertarian-minded person would argue that people should be able to enter into nearly any contract they'd like with one another, including polygamy. As far as what is acceptable and what is not: Consent is the obvious modern principle to base marriage laws on (so issues where consent is ambiguous is where this becomes ambiguous). You're saying we need to draw the line somewhere, but that doesn't mean we just draw it arbitrarily because we need a line. You actually need some logical reasoning behind it. That's my point no matter where u draw the line it will be arbitrarily drawn because boundaries are always being pushed in every aspect of life. I used polygamy as an example not because it's anything like gay marriage but the law is applied to both in the same way, in that they are both Against the law and for no definitive reason other then thats the way it has always been. So who draws this new line saying now gay marriage Is ok? I think the reason this is such a hot button issue is because even open minded people who have no prejudice towards the gay community Still have mixed feelings on the subject of marriage. No. Why is the line arbitrary? What part of 'consent' don't you understand? Consent is not arbitrary. And quite frankly an open minded person with no prejudice towards the gay community would be apathetic toward the subject of gay marriage. And apathetic means pro gay marriage, because the opinion would be "Eh, if they want to get married, let them get married, sheesh. What do I care?" So, you want to say someone with no prejudices bases his decisions on indifference, that means in your eyes you should never question your prejudices and follow blindly? Whose behavior is more apathetic? What? I don't understand your connection at all. I was just trying to deal with the 'neutral individual' if you will. I don't see how you get 'follow blindly' from apathy. Apathetic people don't follow things, and we assumed there was no prejudice. Indifference is the default attitude toward other people's behavior (that doesn't affect you). Unless you're gay, gay marriage is other people's behavior. There is no 'neutral individual', that would mean you are projecting objectivity on a subject. Every attribute of an individual is more or less reciprocally connected/related to memories or affects, for instance if your mother had blond hair you are to some extent related in some way (dependent on your association with your mother) to individuals with that attribute. In can be in an obvious way or more subtile one. These relations are nothing different but prejudices because you implicitly extract conclusions out of them with arbitrary predicative power, thats what Einstein meant when he said "common sense is the sum of our prejudices". By not questioning their rationality (indifference) you follow them blindly (heteronomy).
Okay, I don't know why you're thinking about this so hard. It's pretty obvious that I didn't.
|
I think someone already stated this in here, but shouldn't we be worried when big corporations are fighting ethical battles? It's just a big advertising campaign for them I think, unless Google's CEO is gay
|
If gay marriage becomes legal then the flood gates will open for companies as they are persons too. A merger between two big legal persons with an unclear sexuality is wrong...
|
On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i think Google needs to be less political.
Agreed.
From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
|
On July 12 2012 23:29 archonOOid wrote:
If gay marriage becomes legal then the flood gates will open for companies as they are persons too. A merger between two big legal persons with an unclear sexuality is wrong...
I'm pretty sure there are sufficient distinctions between a person and a company in the law for your wacko scenario to not be an issue.
|
On July 12 2012 23:30 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 22:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i think Google needs to be less political. Agreed. From a business stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to remain neutral on polarizing subjects like this? I'm only one consumer, but I'm now considering changing to Bing and removing chrome.
As has been stated before, among young people (=most internet users, especially when looking ahead) people with anti-gay feeling as you are becoming more and more rare.
So this stance should appeal to the majority of their possible users. Also, you would have to stop using your Android phone, Google, Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Maps, Earth, etc.. Most people won't do that.
People who are so undeveloped that they think gay marriage is a bad thing probably won't know all of these services belong to Google anyway, so they'll take even less losses.
Besides, you can bet Google has considered the business standpoint, and disagrees with you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
