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.
Stop being so boring and let people be happy. If they love someone of the same gender as themselves then let them.
I think what google is doing is great since this needs more attention. It´s just silly that our society isnt more tolerant already and open about this.
Click the picture for the article on Huffington Post
Google has announced a global campaign in support of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The Internet giant announced its Legalize Love campaign at the Global LGBT Workplace Summit 2012, which took place in London. The campaign launches Saturday, July 7 in Poland and Singapore. Organizers plan to expand the campaign to every country where Google has an office, focusing on countries where anti-gay sentiment runs high. “We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office,” Google's Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is quoted by dot429.com as saying at the summit. “It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work.” “Singapore wants to be a global financial center and world leader and we can push them on the fact that being a global center and a world leader means you have to treat all people the same, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” Palmer-Edgecumbe said of the decision to include Singapore in the campaign's initial phase. Bob Amnnibale, an openly gay executive at Citi, applauded the effort: “The fact that Google is so virtual and its appeal is very wide and young demographically means it can help spread messaging very, very quickly.”
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.
Honestly speaking I doubt that this will cause much discord in Singapore at all, Singapore has a very large and flourishing gay community.
I'm going to sound like some retard conspiracy theorist, but the truth is that the government intentionally wants to keep such issues hush hush. The government's official stance is simple: We believe that homosexuality is a 'thing' and we shouldn't discriminate them. The only reason why homosexuality is technically outlawed here is due to the fact that the government believes, and rightfully so, that the Singaporean public has not matured enough to openly accept homosexuals. However homosexuals of today are rarely if ever discriminated against, Singapore has changed a lot
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
That is absolutely fine by me. I would expect their doctor to inform them of the medical risks should they wish to reproduce but that's a medical rather than legal issue.
Well, apart from incest, which I consider morally wrong, on an utilitarian point of view the State should not incentivate the procreation of children with genetic problems - the majority of children of incestuos relationships - this is because I consider children, and thus the future of man, to be the key of marriage.
On July 08 2012 20:51 Pisky wrote: I think this is a strong argument against:
and in my personal view, it really depends on the question if marriage can or cannot be understood apart from procreation.
Procreation can be understood apart from marriage.
Why can't marriage be understood apart from procreation?
Why is marrital status given legal benefits that do not depend on any children being in the picture, if marriage was only understood through procreation?
Why is marriage a "spiritual union" if only understood by procreation?
Are you saying that every vow and "i do" and tear and "spiritual fulfillment" is only expressed in context with procreation? Would you now, after considering this, feel slightly perverted if you said "I do" in front of your mom and the rest of your family, with everybody knowing the ceremony cannot be understood apart from procreation?
I'm personally not inclined to be against gay marriage but I can definetly understand why the state would not allow it. Since the state bans psychedelics ( imo because they radically change the order on society, for the better or the worse, we won't know it until is done ) why shouldn't they ban gay marriage ? Just like psychadelics, same sex marriage does not help the state, no babies, no soldiers, no workers, no economy, no nothing - this coming from an "anti-statist". I might be wrong but that's my interpretation on why the state would not allow gay marriage.
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.
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).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote: Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
While you seem to lack understanding of pretty much everything, we are talking about all human beings having the same rights. The argument could be made if certain donkeys could marry, others could not. However that is not the case.
Right now certain human beings have more rights than others, which obviously is an issue.
On July 08 2012 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: You think the concept of man and man marrying is equally as stupid as the concept of man and donkey marrying. Why?
If you're wondering, I do understand the concept of an "opinion". I just think that opinions should not be free to ignore the shackles of factuality or logic.
This is why I think that: Source: Google Images
Notice how, magic (or science rather) happens when you plug one into the other? But when: 1. Plug - to - plug ... no magic 2. Power Outlet - to - power outlet ... no magic
Similarly to me (and don't worry, you don't need to agree because it's "moronic" to you): Man - to - man ... no marriage Woman - to - woman ... no marriage.
Now most of you will take my simple analogy so literally that you will bash me for my 60 IQ. But treat this post as a symbol, thought or idea, rather than take it literally... and maybe then, you'll understand my viewpoint. If not, I apologize for my low-level IQ.
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.
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.
Why stop there? Why should marriage be between only two people? that's racist/discriminatory/human rights violation and antisemitism... at least! If I want to marry 3 women why cant I? They all gave there consent? If a 36 year old woman wants to marry her 15 year old son why cant she? In 20 years pedophilia and incest will be legalized, why should we be so close-minded now? What about a man and a goat, or should one person even be alive to marry?
This is stupid, this is a non-issue. In the US, 1 in 6 people, or almost 50 million Americans rely on food stamps, how many people die each year because of disease/war? Something like 8% of children drop out of school. NOOO, don't put money into education, suck up to the gay lobby, because it makes you look 'cool' and 'intellectual' to 'stick up' for gay people.
Stop pushing gay marriage and abortion down everybody's throats, seriously, like every thread 'gay marriage this/abortion that', give it a rest, yes we know you want to look the the savior of the universe, but please take your 'I am all-powerfull everyone-should-think-like-me-or-else-they-are-the-devil' somewhere else
No. You make a good argument in a retarded manner.
Why should a company limit itself to certain good causes?
On July 08 2012 20:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: You think the concept of man and man marrying is equally as stupid as the concept of man and donkey marrying. Why?
If you're wondering, I do understand the concept of an "opinion". I just think that opinions should not be free to ignore the shackles of factuality or logic.
This is why I think that: Source: Google Images
Notice how, magic (or science rather) happens when you plug one into the other? But when: 1. Plug - to - plug ... no magic 2. Power Outlet - to - power outlet ... no magic
Similarly to me (and don't worry, you don't need to agree because it's "moronic" to you): Man - to - man ... no marriage Woman - to - woman ... no marriage.
Now most of you will take my simple analogy so literally that you will bash me for my 60 IQ. But treat this post as a symbol, thought or idea, rather than take it literally... and maybe then, you'll understand my viewpoint. If not, I apologize for my low-level IQ.
:D
You are an actual moron. If someone like you is allowed to marry and procreate - there would definitely be no harm in allowing homosexuals to marry.
On July 08 2012 20:51 Pisky wrote: I think this is a strong argument against: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc
and in my personal view, it really depends on the question if marriage can or cannot be understood apart from procreation.
It's actually a pathetically weak argument against. All I have to do is say "Adoption" and suddenly his argument goes out the window. Gay people can have children through adoption. So if we're talking "theoretically" or "in principle" then they can have children, just like heterosexuals can. I have no idea how a heterosexual couple adopting a child is so much different than a homosexual couple adopting a child.
It reduces marriage down to two things: Making Babies and Genitalia. Personally I find that to be rather offensive to marriage, myself. Who cares if someone can have children or neither of their bits dangle?
I mean these anti-gay advocates have the gall to claim that marriage is under attack while slamming marriage constantly with their arguments. It's a great example of doublespeak. FFS, they want to prevent people from having families! That is literally what their goal is. How this could possibly be construed as "pro-family" is beyond me. All the harm to the family has been coming from the "pro-family" side of things.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
That is absolutely fine by me. I would expect their doctor to inform them of the medical risks should they wish to reproduce but that's a medical rather than legal issue.
Well, apart from incest, which I consider morally wrong, on an utilitarian point of view the State should not incentivate the procreation of children with genetic problems - the majority of children of incestuos relationships - this is because I consider children, and thus the future of man, to be the key of marriage.
We already have a word for when two people have children together. It's called reproducing. I'm not sure why you think marriage, a word which covers infertile people, people beyond childbearing age, people using contraception and the like, to mean the same thing, but only when gays are involved. Your definition does not bear any resemblance to how marriage works in society or what it means. In fact, I think the only reason this obsession over children as being the point of marriage in an age where marriage is no longer seen as necessary to the raising of children is to serve an anti-gay agenda. You don't see homophobic activists campaigning for a one person marriage that single parents can get and yet they insist that children is the definition of marriage.
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.
Ever heard of overpopulation, left behind children and hunger problems? The thing you don't have to worry about is making even more children. It's not like if you forbid gays to marry that they will become straight all of sudden, plus who are you to tell someone who to love?
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.
You're right, homosexuality is unnatural...but that's an issue that's long term, and there's no evidence to imply that would even end up being a problem.
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.
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.
Why stop there? Why should marriage be between only two people? that's racist/discriminatory/human rights violation and antisemitism... at least! If I want to marry 3 women why cant I? They all gave there consent? If a 36 year old woman wants to marry her 15 year old son why cant she? In 20 years pedophilia and incest will be legalized, why should we be so close-minded now? What about a man and a goat, or should one person even be alive to marry?
This is stupid, this is a non-issue. In the US, 1 in 6 people, or almost 50 million Americans rely on food stamps, how many people die each year because of disease/war? Something like 8% of children drop out of school. NOOO, don't put money into education, suck up to the gay lobby, because it makes you look 'cool' and 'intellectual' to 'stick up' for gay people.
Stop pushing gay marriage and abortion down everybody's throats, seriously, like every thread 'gay marriage this/abortion that', give it a rest, yes we know you want to look the the savior of the universe, but please take your 'I am all-powerfull everyone-should-think-like-me-or-else-they-are-the-devil' somewhere else
Ok but, if ending poverty takes precedent, I propose no one be allowed to get legally married until poverty is ended.
Also, they prolly don't wanna look like the saviours of the universe; I think they'd rather want to get married. Don't you?
But it's the same crap over and over and over again, these are issues that people already have already made up there minds about, writing a post in this thread is not going to change anything. Reading somebody else's post against your view is not going to change anything. It's just the same crap being said over and over and over. I think if somebody is dieing of hunger in your own back yard it takes precedent over something like 'gay marriage'. Gay people being murdered in the streets because they are gay is a problem which can be put into the same category as people dieing from war/famine/disease. I look at 'gay marriage' as a first world 'problem' which takes valuable resources/time/interest away from more important things. Just like problems everyone has instead of a problem a minority group has should take precedent...
After reading all these comments it's making me wonder why we have a calssification for marriage in the first place, at least legaly. Why not get rid of the classification of marriage within law and just make it a term to use cassualy.
On July 08 2012 21:06 DonKey_ wrote: After reading all these comments it's making me wonder why we have a calssification for marriage in the first place, at least legaly. Why not get rid of the classification of marriage within law and just make a term to use cassualy.
Because they are embedded into all kinds of other laws pertaining to taxes, medical rights, adoption options, etc That's too ingrained to change now, so the most reasonable approach is to figure out who are and are not allowed to be legally married and therefore legally allowed these rights
Maybe we should stop talking about gay marriage rights and start talking about the real issue: equal marriage rights. Also how about an end to comparisons between homosexual pair bonding and inter familial bonding.
There is a giant boon to be had from the appropriation, propagation and legitimisation of homosexual relationships. Imagine a world in the near future where homosexuals can enjoy socially approved long term stable relationships and inclusive adoption rights granting millions of children the chance of a brighter future within a loving family environment.
Incestuous pair bonding on the other hand leads to damaged DNA entering the gene pool and so is detrimental to future generations.
Kudos to Google for being part of the solution and not part of the problem, whether it's a cynical business move or a genuine drive to increase the well being of ~10% of the population.
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BlU5V5BaMjY/SGlIEcCEhrI/AAAAAAAACiU/HZ44buYaI1k/s400/GoogleGayFan1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/stockphotopro_73018778KEZ_no_title.jpg)
