| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On July 08 2012 19:49 Azera wrote: Here are some places to start  http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html Also I might be wrong but I believe most colleges will accept wikipedia as a source still. | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
| ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On July 08 2012 19:53 Adreme wrote: Also I might be wrong but I believe most colleges will accept wikipedia as a source still. This is getting off topic, but I think it depends more on the professor than the college. Technologically inclined professors who understand wikipedia are more willing to accept it as one of many sources, while other (typically older) professors don't. | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On July 08 2012 19:53 Adreme wrote: Also I might be wrong but I believe most colleges will accept wikipedia as a source still. Wikipedia isn't a source of information. It's a collection of sources to form well-written articles about various subjects. | ||
|
Phony
Russian Federation24 Posts
| ||
|
shabby
Norway6402 Posts
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. People are already gay, letting them marry changes nothing, it just gives them the rights they deserve. | ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
| ||
|
Kahuna.
Canada196 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Prugelhugel
Austria637 Posts
On July 08 2012 19:57 stevarius wrote: Wikipedia isn't a source of information. It's a collection of sources to form well-written articles about various subjects. Wikipedia is a good source to get an idea about a subject, but you can't take everything there for granted. @ Topic: I can't really see the point in doing this? I mean, it's a positive thing, but what is it supposed to be? Some kind of PR campaign? Anyways, a company of the size of Google not being afraid to lose a huge part of their customers with such a statement means a shift in society into a good direction. | ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. | ||
|
noddy
United Kingdom927 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them. Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. On July 08 2012 20:06 Kahuna. wrote: Lol at this initiative. Even Google has succumed to this backwardness that has been on the rise over the last couple of decades. It would be most fitting for them to now change the company's name to Gaygle, no? Wow, very witty. Not really though. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 18:41 Tripal wrote: Why would they want to get wed in a christian manner if christianity as a religion is totally against gay people. It would mean that christians would have to somehow change the religion for it to be possible for gay people to get married there. This should be more like a campaign for allowing gay people to register their "marriage" in like a state office or something, because they can't for christianity to change their views, that are based on "a holy book" just because some gay people want to get married in a church. ps. not a christian, but this is just stupid. It's even more stupid that christianity monopolized marriage and got away with it, and got to dictate laws because of it. | ||
KwarK
United States43407 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them. Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd. | ||
|
Gluon
Netherlands405 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:07 Prugelhugel wrote: Wikipedia is a good source to get an idea about a subject, but you can't take everything there for granted. @ Topic: I can't really see the point in doing this? I mean, it's a positive thing, but what is it supposed to be? Some kind of PR campaign? Anyways, a company of the size of Google not being afraid to lose a huge part of their customers with such a statement means a shift in society into a good direction. Don't think they will actually lose customers. People might say they'll stay away from Google, but when nobody is looking, well there is no good enough alternative.. Think it'll be mostly big talk from some homophobes, but no way android users will sell their phones, gmail users will switch accounts, or Google users will stop googling. | ||
|
Kahuna.
Canada196 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote: How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:14 bblack wrote: Don't think they will actually lose customers. People might say they'll stay away from Google, but when nobody is looking, well there is no good enough alternative.. Think it'll be mostly big talk from some homophobes, but no way android users will sell their phones, gmail users will switch accounts, or Google users will stop googling. There will probably be the temporary outrage where people say they will never use google or any of there products again and then 2 weeks later are buying an android and googling a new cooking recipe. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them. Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. Why do you promote segregation of sexualities? Would you propose a segregation in white and black marriage aswell? Would you had done so had you lived 50-100 years ago? Why would you not propose a segregation of religion and state? Wouldnt that make more sense, specially since not separating between law and religion is unbiblical? I mean, if you prefer living by religious law, you could move to the middle east. | ||
|
lisward
Singapore959 Posts
On July 08 2012 18:29 Azera wrote: ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BlU5V5BaMjY/SGlIEcCEhrI/AAAAAAAACiU/HZ44buYaI1k/s400/GoogleGayFan1.jpg) Click the picture for the article on Huffington Post As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them. Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well. The only thing Google is going to achieve it to cause discord in Singapore. While theoretically the law dictates that homosexuality can technically be illegal, it has never been, and will never be enforced in such a manner. | ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:11 KwarK wrote: Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd. That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly. How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are? | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote: Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here). | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  33301Rain 8256EffOrt  1822Stork 742Shuttle 610BeSt 538actioN 236Snow 216Mini 173Barracks  165[ Show more ] Other Games Grubby2312 singsing2079 Liquid`RaSZi965 hiko945 B2W.Neo644 XaKoH  204ArmadaUGS76 QueenE69 XcaliburYe69 djWHEAT58 KnowMe34 |
|
SOOP
SHIN vs GuMiho
Cure vs Creator
The PondCast
Wardi Open
Big Gabe XPERIONCRAFT
AI Arena Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
DragOn vs Sziky
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
