×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Launches International Campaign For Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the personal-autonomy-is-a-good-thing dept.

Google 804

Apple and many other tech companies have offered benefits to same-sex couples (and sometimes made them a sticking point) for quite some time now, but Google is taking its position of inclusion for sexual minorities outside the company itself; the company has announced an international campaign to promote legal marriage equality for same-sex couples, called "Legalize Love." According to CNN's version of the story, while this represents Google's policies overall, the campaign will at first "focus on countries like Singapore, where certain homosexual activities are illegal, and Poland, which has no legal recognition of same-sex couples." dot429 quotes Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe of Google, speaking in London Saturday at a summit where the initiative was announced: "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. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work." Also at CNET.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

804 comments

So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584113)

How about "legalizing love" when it comes to 68-year-old men wanting to marry 7-year-old girls as well? Or is that somehow not OK whereas the most unnatural thing in the world is?

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (4, Informative)

codewarren (927270) | about 2 years ago | (#40584187)

Because the mind of a 7-year-old is not mature enough to know whether or not it really wants to marry anyone, let alone a 68-year old. I don't see why that's relevant.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (5, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40584355)

OK, I am not promoting the original commenter view, but then how about 3 or more mature adults who love each other?
Why do corporations and governments have any say in who we love, live with, and raise together?
The whole gay marriage issue seems like such a tiny specific issue to have a problem with.
And the how they always bring love into it, always bugs me. Love has nothing to do with legal marriage or what homosexuals want. Homosexuals, in general, want one thing to legalise marriage and gay sex. They do not want to legalise pedo-love, bestiality, or polygamy.

adults living together (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#40584415)

polygamy

Just wanted to say that... if wages are as stagnant for the next 40 years as they have been for the last 40, then having more than 2 adults living together may become a necessity if you wish to have a household with children.

A variant of this has already happened with so many of the under-30 crowd being out of work and having to live with their parents.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (2)

codewarren (927270) | about 2 years ago | (#40584431)

Google isn't saying we need marriage for gays, exactly, they are saying that we need equal treatment. If the government is giving preferential treatment to heterosexuals and denying it to everyone else, then that's wrong.

So then the question of whether or not "marriage" should be a legally recognized thing at all is another question. It may or may not be. But, consider that if children also need protection from government, then it actually could be in a government's interest to control the environment they're raised in to some extent.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584257)

I'm not sure what being natural has to do with a man-made institution like marriage, but homosexuality is indeed natural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals [wikipedia.org]

Also, the difference between homosexuals marrying and children marrying is consent. The same goes for marrying animals as that is another argument that is often brought up by homophobic people like yourself in this kind of debate.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#40584537)

Don't forget, it is natural only if it is about in 10% of the cases. If it becomes 100%, then it is pretty much unnatural.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584259)

> Or is that somehow not OK whereas the most unnatural thing in the world is?

Well, call me a radical deviant, but I just love the feel of a long hard polycotton trouser-leg.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (4, Funny)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 2 years ago | (#40584343)

Wow only two comments in and some idiot managed to compare a consensual relationship between adults to pedophilia. Next up, some ignoramus saying "but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"
 

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#40584465)

"but what if a guy wants to marry his Great Dane?"

He'd have to train the Great Dane to say "I do" first.

If you can manage that feat, then it would ok.

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584527)

Marriage to parrots should be a snap, then. Seriously, though, I don't see how anyone can oppose something like polygamy among adults if they're trying to "legalize love." If 3 or more adults want to be in a union, how can monogamists be so close minded?

Re:So now Google is literally a bunch of faggots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584477)

it was you who said it!

it's a plot. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584119)

See corporations are people without gender. They want to be able to marry each other.

Then they can file a joint tax return and have children.

Marriage =/= legal union. (-1, Troll)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#40584285)

Marriage is a religious rite, witchcraft and the substrate for it is a couple of differing genders. Please don't make secular legal union into this unholy superstitious sourcery.

Re:Marriage =/= legal union. (5, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#40584457)

Marriage is a religious rite [...]

This is not true for instance in Germany and many other european countries. There marriage is a legal procedure, performed by a municipal clerk. You can only go to your church, synagoge, mosque or whatever the sacred place is called in your religion to celebrate your marriage if you can show the official document sealing your marriage. Also the legal implications coming with marriage require the official procedure and the accompagnying paperwork.

At long last (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584139)

Now Slashtards can finally come out of the closet (and their mom's basements). Squeeee.

Also: First Post.

Captcha: Mooned (like goatse)

Faggotry (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584161)

Google should not be meddling with this. What happened to 'not be evil' This reeks of evil.

Re:Faggotry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584173)

Why so much hate? So what if some dudes like penis and anus (male variety)?

Re:Faggotry (2, Insightful)

codewarren (927270) | about 2 years ago | (#40584251)

Yeah, it's like those companies that hired those black people, trying to make life easier for their employees by campaigning against racism. Stupid evil companies, trying to get rid of all that great benevolent bigotry we've fought so hard for.

Re:Faggotry (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584319)

I didn't know members of the Westboro Baptist Church were literate enough to post to Slashdot!

Re:Faggotry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584503)

They are quite literate enough to sue the pants off everyone for harassment. Some say that's how they make money, effectively a major scam.

Re:Faggotry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584387)

large corporations (and the rich business owners before them) have been intentionally modifying the cultures they operate in for, well ever. At least in this case Google is on the side of equality rather than profit taking.

Other prime examples of corp's modifying culture:
Diamonds, they used to be considered trash gems. thanks to debeers, they're now very expensive and a large percentage of women have been brainwashed into thinking diamonds=love.

Any transportation other than cars in north america, until the rise of the auto super corps there were a multiple of ways to travel between your destinations, from train, plane, boat etc. now, you NEED a car to be a real citizen. they did such a good job that they even convinced cities to design themselves around cars rather than around people. (an anthropologist might conclude that we worshipped cars so much that they were the center of our society)

A slashdot favourite: Intellectual property laws. a more recent example is the current day corps convincing everybody that file sharing is theft.

A political favourite: Fox news. It has successfully managed to manipulate the state of political discourse in the US. while politics has always been full of rhetoric, It has in no small part been able to assist in the election of more of a type of politician which is only interested in my way or go to hell.

In short, Corps modify culture, all that money lets them do it pretty much scott free. Some use it to increase their profits, some for political ends. In google's case, the optics of it seem to support them wanting to influence equality.

World Pride 2012 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584171)

Possibly worth noting that on Saturday in London was World Pride 2012, and representatives from Google were among the groups in the parade (photo) [flickr.com]

I'll be impressed when... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584191)

Google needs to start this campaign in Afghanistan, Iran and downtown Cairo. See how far they get there.

Re:I'll be impressed when... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584221)

Google needs to start this campaign in Afghanistan, Iran and downtown Cairo. See how far they get there.

BWAAA HAAA HAAA

A leftist be "brave" when it's not safe?

BWAAA AHAAA HAAAA!

Re:I'll be impressed when... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584281)

Do they even have any kind of representation there? Do they have a datacenter there? Or even a simple office for tax deduction or whatever.

I think its best to start this in places where it has a chance on success.

Re:I'll be impressed when... (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#40584375)

From TFA:

The campaign will focus on countries like Singapore, where certain homosexual activities are illegal, and Poland, which has no legal recognition of same-sex couples.

It sounds like they're doing things wisely and focusing on countries in which the politics are not so turbulent and are not dominated by religious extremists. Poland and Singapore could probably be swayed. Egypt and Afghanistan obviously have bigger issues to contend with, and Afghanistan, that would be pissing money and effort away.

So I'm impressed that they seem to be taking a pragmatic approach and focusing on what they can actually do, rather than slamming their head against the biggest, sturdiest walls.

Will homophobes and rednecks now flock to Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584227)

Would a homophobe rather Google or Bing someone anyway?

Re:Will homophobes and rednecks now flock to Bing? (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | about 2 years ago | (#40584299)

My understanding is that Microsoft has a pretty good track record when it comes down to acceptance of homosexuals. Is this wrong?

Re:Will homophobes and rednecks now flock to Bing? (2)

CdBee (742846) | about 2 years ago | (#40584617)

Microsoft have been targeted by right wing faith- (hate-) groups for their pro-gay-rights positions so I assume you're right.
I vaguely recall the company being asked (by same hate groups) to dismiss a prominent equality rights activist and flatly refusing, choosing instead to endorse his positions.

Why not start at home? (5, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40584239)

The US still has a long way to go for full LGBT equality. I can understand stuff like trying to stop stoning of homosexuals in countries where it is illegal, but as for the same-sex marriage fight, it hasn't even been won on the home front yet. I hate to call it a war... but why expand the territory of a war when you're still losing battles in disputed territory you're trying to occupy?

Re:Why not start at home? (4, Insightful)

codewarren (927270) | about 2 years ago | (#40584305)

I'd mod you up if I had not already commented, here. This was exactly what I was thinking. If I were a bigot in Poland, I think I would be a bit incensed by Google telling me I have to treat LGBTs equally in my country when they aren't treated equally even in Google's own home country.

Re:Why not start at home? (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#40584449)

I believe you'll find that most non-Americans are already a bit incensed about American companies telling them how to run their country. I suspect this kind of behaviour is more likely to increase the backlash than help anyone's human rights.

Re:Why not start at home? (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | about 2 years ago | (#40584561)

You have to start from somewhere. At least bringing the Polish laws up to date to the decency would be a win. Same-sex marriage will eventually become a undeniable right in all of EU.

Re:Why not start at home? (4, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 2 years ago | (#40584515)

Because it's not that kind of war. Social struggles have no 'front' - the fight takes place everywhere, all at once. And in a struggle of public consensus the more battles you start, the more likely you are to succeed at each (cf. Arab Spring for snow-balling social-political change). We should start as many campaigns as our resources allow, for the benefit of everyone.

Re:Why not start at home? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584553)

It has been won, at least in California. And the Supreme Court ruled that it's sticking. And Obama is for it. At this point it's just going to trickle through the system. I mean, sure, it should happen quicker, but their resources are better spent elsewhere at this point.

What about ladyboys? (3, Insightful)

WhiteHover (2679613) | about 2 years ago | (#40584245)

Google promoting same sex marriage is great and all, but what about ladyboys and the so called third gender? No, you cannot lump it under homosexuality as it's a different issue. Same sex marriage is old thing, everyone should fight for people's right to be whatever gender - or a third gender - if they so want to. Even on Slashdot I always get modded down when I mention ladyboys, and I hope not this time because this issue needs to see some daylight.

Re:What about ladyboys? (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#40584395)

Google promoting same sex marriage is great and all, but what about ladyboys and the so called third gender? No, you cannot lump it under homosexuality as it's a different issue. Same sex marriage is old thing, everyone should fight for people's right to be whatever gender - or a third gender - if they so want to. Even on Slashdot I always get modded down when I mention ladyboys, and I hope not this time because this issue needs to see some daylight.

The distinction between straight, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender marriage should matter only to the couple that's marrying. There's no reason the government needs to make a distinction.

If a male->female part time cross dresser is in love with and wants to marry a female->male post-op transexual, why is it anyone's business but the couple? There's no need to make up another "gender", just take gender out of the marriage equation entirely.

Re:What about ladyboys? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584543)

It is other people's business as soon as there are tax breaks or any other government "perks" or benefits to a legally recognized union. That's because the breaks and benefits are funded by the people as a nation.

No tax breaks? No free daycare? No benefits to any union between consenting adults? No costs to tax payers? Then I don't care what you do.

Re:What about ladyboys? (2)

WhiteHover (2679613) | about 2 years ago | (#40584545)

It shouldn't matter to marriage, but it should matter to other things where your gender is defined, like passport. Some transgenders want to identity as third gender instead of the opposite of their old gender.

Re:What about ladyboys? (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#40584529)

What about ladyboys? The term is associated with a specific type of prostitution in SE Asia (particularly Thailand) and I'm under the impression it's a concept created by pimps looking for something exotic to offer rather than a naturally occurring group of guys who want to be girls. That is to say, the term denotes a kind of profession rather than an identity.

Unless something has changed over the last few years, no one in the US LGBTQ community uses this term when arguing about rights.

Re:What about ladyboys? (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#40584555)

By the time you get to the "T" in "LGBT", you're pretty much too open-minded for that to be a concern. Or are you saying "I want employee registration forms where the gender field is a variable-length string instead of a one-bit value"?

sickening. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584247)

revolting.

abusing their position to try and warp our society.

homosexual behavior is deviant behavior.

Re:sickening. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584293)

Yeah, but you probably also said black people warped our society back in the 60s, so whatever.

Re:sickening. (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | about 2 years ago | (#40584605)

I think these people should read the other bits of their precious Leviticus, it would be an eye opener.

Re:sickening. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584447)

That's right. And we, you and I, get to say what is deviant and what isn't. Isn't that convenient? Bring back Adolf Hitler! He wasn't so bad. Hallelujah!

Bad idea (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#40584269)

Corporations should stick to their core mandate, and not get into 'social engineering'.

Be it a 'worthy' cause or not, its not their place to stick their noses into it and 'pick sides'.

Re:Bad idea (5, Insightful)

codewarren (927270) | about 2 years ago | (#40584345)

Yeah, I get so tired of companies who try to stick up for the rights of their employees. Damn them. Why can't they all just exploit their employees to the max like everyone else.

Re:Bad idea (1, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40584411)

But their is a difference between says all couples of any gender pairing in our emply gets benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.

gay marriage and equality is all well and good but then that is not the only thing a corporation can campaign for. I think it would make a lot of sense for laws to prohibit corporations from taking sides in societies issues.

Re:Bad idea (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40584501)

But there is a difference between saying all couples, of any gender, pairing in our employ get benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.

Re:Bad idea (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#40584611)

But their is a difference between says all couples of any gender pairing in our emply gets benefits and campaigning to make it so everywhere.

There's a good business case to do so. If company A tries to do the right thing by granting benefits to domestic partners of all employees regardless of gender, but they compete against companies that do not do so because there's no legal requirement, then company A is at a competitive disadvantage. They could reduce benefits for their employees, or they could lobby to level the playing field for what they think is "right".

Companies lobby for lots of things that benefit themselves (tax exemptions, lax environmental laws, etc), so what's the problem with companies lobbying for something that they think is the right thing for their employees?

Re:Bad idea (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#40584541)

they do and google does.

corporations have no soul, no ethics, no 'feelings'.

google should just fix its own social issues and stop the damned preaching. a corporation showing 'feelings' (no, this is not a pink floyd song) is not cute, its not warming. its simply looking after its own interests.

google, like apple, wants to appear progressive. this is one current way corps do this; is to champion some ideals that their customers (or even employees) can identify with.

but make no mistake, google has no feelings or heart or soul. none of the megacorps do. this is done to better themselves, in the long run.

in short, its just an ad. like most of what google is. its an ad. it tries to buy your loyalty and emotion.

Re:Bad idea (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40584383)

I also think businesses should stop donating to politicians, either directly or indirectly, but the Supreme Court disagrees with us both on this issue.

Re:Bad idea (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#40584455)

Corporations pick sides every day, and pour billions of dollars, expertise, and effort into fighting. And that was before Citizen's United. After the Trans-Pacific Partnership is done and packed away, expect more, not less of this.

Re:Bad idea (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#40584461)

When an organisation wants to get a mandate to act, they always pick issues that are popular at the time to gain the support of the masses. Google interfering with other countries internal politics would set a very bad precedent.

Re:Bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584473)

It is everyone's job to start up for what is ethical. It doesn't matter if it's a CEO putting their company into the fight or some random person on the street. When people in a society stop fighting for their rights and the rights of those around them it's a sad thing. I think it's great Google is doing the right thing here. "Not my/their problem" is a terrible and apathetic stance to take.

Why not get government out of marriage? (5, Interesting)

trout007 (975317) | about 2 years ago | (#40584287)

As far as the government is concerned marriage should be treated like any other contract. They should have no say in the contents. If there is a breech take it to court and let a jury decide. Then purge out of law any benefits or tax considerations based on material status and just people as individuals.

Re:Why not get government out of marriage? (1)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 years ago | (#40584373)

The government has used regulation to prevent certain groups from marrying forever. The only solution is to remove them from the equation.

Why not let government handle marriage? (3, Informative)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#40584551)

So if people who are getting married, they get married by the government. If they want to undergo a ritual somewhere else, like in a church, that can be done separately.

That is how it is done in at least Belgium and Germany and probably other countries as well.

It should then be extremely easy to allow same sex marriage as government should not discriminate on gender.

Re:Why not get government out of marriage? (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | about 2 years ago | (#40584613)

Then purge out of law any benefits or tax considerations based on material status and just people as individuals.

A considerable fraction of the electorate supports tax benefits for married couples. Whether or not you or I like it, I think it's pretty well established that the people should determine what does and does not qualify for a tax break.

Re:Why not get government out of marriage? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#40584619)

As far as the government is concerned marriage should be treated like any other contract. They should have no say in the contents. If there is a breech take it to court and let a jury decide. Then purge out of law any benefits or tax considerations based on material status and just people as individuals.

The government should very much be able to say what can and cannot be put into a contract. Otherwise, things like slavery would be legal if it was in a contract. The government can and should be able to decide what can and cannot be in a contract for the good of society.

And revoking marriage benefits is an even worse idea. The concept behind it is that it allows both parents to not have to work (in fact many do, either because they want more money to sustain their lifestyle or because they can't get good enough jobs not to, but the marriage benefits help tremendously). Parents in the US already don't pay enough attention to their kids (with pretty awful results), this would make that far far worse. Unless you want kids being raised by the government. I most certainly do not.

Don't be evil (3, Insightful)

LourensV (856614) | about 2 years ago | (#40584289)

I'll be the last to say that Google can do nothing wrong (and avoid using their services as much as I can for privacy reasons), but it's things like this that in my eyes put them a step above their competition ethically. Do we see Facebook do this? Microsoft? Apple? Same thing with withdrawing from China rather than censoring on behalf of their government, and a bunch of other examples.

Corporations aren't people, but as Google demonstrates, they can occasionally show their human face.

Re:Don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584393)

I believe Microsoft has a fairly good track record. Both Microsoft and Google had a presence at yesterdays world pride. Facebook probably doesn't have enough employees to have been represented in London for the event, so that only really leaves Apple wanting. IBM employees were also present if you're going down the tech/IT route.

Re:Don't be evil (1)

Paul Slocum (598127) | about 2 years ago | (#40584417)

I was actually thinking this is kinda small beans compared to what Bill Gates does charity-wise. And I think I like that he does his charity work separately from Microsoft.

Re:Don't be evil (2)

robbo (4388) | about 2 years ago | (#40584509)

Microsoft was offering same-sex benefits when GOOG was still a gleam in Sergey and Larry's eyes.

http://www.microsoft.com/about/diversity/en/us/programs/ergen/gleam.aspx [microsoft.com]

Making a road-show of it can be a double-edged sword and though I thinks it's great GOOG is having this experiment it can sometimes backfire. There's the whole problem with imposting 'western' values on the rest of the world and how that can erode positive inroads. Prime directive and all that.

Re:Don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584589)

and yet Microsoft has serious issues with hiring black people. You could count the number of black people in Windows division on two hands on a foot...and all in the lower levels.

Gay is cool these days and companies are going out of their way to be gay friendly...but don't be black.

Supporting employees with dissenting views (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584303)

"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. It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work."

And what about those employees who (for whatever reason) are against same-sex marriage? If Google wants to support their employees does Google also support those people? Or are they just lying about wanting to support employees - Google only wants to support SOME employees who have corporate-approved beliefs and it wants to advocate against views by other employees?

If Google is anti-anti same-sex marriage then it could create a hostile environment who hold views that aren't corporate-approved, no?

Re:Supporting employees with dissenting views (2)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 2 years ago | (#40584359)

So Google shouldn't hire black people because it might offend a racist?

Re:Supporting employees with dissenting views (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 2 years ago | (#40584377)

Well, wanting to marry, and wanting to prevent others from marrying, are not really on the same level. Like wanting an ice cream, and wanting to prevent someone from having an ice cream.

I know back in grade schools bullies seemed to like their ice-cream much better once they had trashed mine, but we(re no longer in grade school, riiiight ?

Re:Supporting employees with dissenting views (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40584493)

You do have a point, being publicly pro-homosexual is more of less the same as being anti-anti-gay. And if a homosexual-bigot worked for them then he would have reasons to feel his workplace was hostile to him and his beliefs.

The summary is wrong. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#40584311)

the company has announced an international campaign to promote legal marriage equality for same-sex couples, called "Legalize Love."

FTA [cnn.com] :

Some news reports said the 'Legalize Love' campaign would push for worldwide legalization of same-sex marriage, but a Google spokesman called that inaccurate. The campaign's focus is on human rights and employment discrimination, he said.

Google has spoken out before on same-sex marriage issues, most prominently when it came out in 2008 against California's "Proposition 8" ban on same-sex marriage.

2 Percent of Americans Identify as Gay [discovery.com]

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples [frc.org]

Re:The summary is wrong. (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40584407)

A link from the Family Research Council? I'm sorry I clicked through. Pick better sources. The only lesbian couple I personally know is in their 70s - both sweet gray haired ladies who have a garden that makes me jealous and foster rescue dogs. They've been together for forty years. The only reason they're not married is because the government says they're not allowed to be married.

True equality (3, Insightful)

davide marney (231845) | about 2 years ago | (#40584403)

I'm fine with Google being free to promote homosexuality as long as I am free to disagree with them and promote heterosexuality. Vive la difference!

Re:True equality (4, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 2 years ago | (#40584435)

Why does the majority need to be promoted?

Re:True equality (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40584559)

Because some members of the majority are bigots. How exactly this poster's statement is fundamentally any different than the frequent White Supremacist statement about "promoting the White Race" is beyond me. But bigots aren't known for their imaginations and frequently crib other bigots' talking points.

Dear Google, fuck off (0)

Swampash (1131503) | about 2 years ago | (#40584409)

Butt out. Persons decide how and why and when human society will change, adapt, and evolve. Google the company is not a person. It has no standing and has no voice in this debate. Its employees, yes. Its owners, yes. But Google the company should stick to selling ads and STFU.

Re:Dear Google, fuck off (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40584575)

Except the Constitution doesn't make distinctions like "company" in the First Amendment. Nice try at authoritarianism though.

Polygamy (5, Interesting)

downhole (831621) | about 2 years ago | (#40584423)

I generally support gay rights, but I've always been a little meh on the idea of gay marriage. What I'd really like to hear is for a gay marriage advocate to explain to me why polygamy should be illegal yet gay marriage should be legal. If we should let two guys or two girls get married because they really love each other and want to be together forever and all of that, then why shouldn't we let a guy marry two or three or more girls (or whatever other combination you can think of) if they all really love each other and want to be together in that way? It isn't something completely absurd like marrying dogs or cars or something - there have been and still are many societies where polygamy is normal and accepted and widely practiced. So why not?

Re:Polygamy (5, Interesting)

Asmor (775910) | about 2 years ago | (#40584563)

Polygamy should be legal, for all the reasons you suggest. As long as all the participants are of sound mind and everything's consensual, who has any right to tell people they can't engage in polygamy?

The government shouldn't have any say in this sort of thing whatsoever.

Re:Polygamy (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 2 years ago | (#40584573)

I don't know any gay marriage advocates who would be against polygamy as long as all participants are of age and willingly consent. I think you should be talking to some of the same people who oppose gay marriage.

Re:Polygamy (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about 2 years ago | (#40584593)

Thats a good question. There are arguments for and against both polygamy and polyandry. The biggest problem with legalizing polygamy is that it is associated with certain religious cults [mormon.org] that like to forcibly marry underage girls [exmormon.org] .

Re:Polygamy (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40584597)

That's a bit of a strawman. I, for one, don't see any reason polygamy shouldn't be legal, providing all members of the marital union are consenting adults (and that means no child swapping like some sicko Mormon offshoots do).

As to dogs, they cannot give their consent, so why you would bring that up is beyond me.

Poor Android fanboys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584425)

Now what are they going to do? Sexual slurs were their primary ammo against iPhone users.

What about many men with many women marriage? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#40584497)

Why? WHY? Why no one seems to make the next natural step???
Step 1: One man with One woman
Step 2: One Man with One Man, or One Woman with One Woman
Step 3: One Man/Woman with Many Women/Men.
Step 4: Many Men/Women with Many Women/Men.
Step 5: ...i wonder what it would be!!!

One Nation Under God. (0)

zenlessyank (748553) | about 2 years ago | (#40584499)

God says man who lie with man is an abomination. Dollar bill says "In God We Trust". So what is the fucking problem? It makes so much sense to make it a law that says God is full of shit. Enjoy sucking on Satan's cock for an eternity, sinners.

Just get marriage off the books entirely (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40584603)

There is *no* reason that "marriage" needs to be defined in law at all.
Just let people love and live however they see fit. If:
- two men
- two women
- a man and 5 women
- a woman and 3 guys
- a group of people
- or any other combination
choose to live together, so be it. Who is anyone to say how someone else can love and choose to live with one or more other people?

Let religions define marriage each in their own way, if they want to--but preserve the separation of church and state.
Let everyone regardless of religion, live with whomever they want.
There is *no* reason to have to declare your relationships to the state. Seems very silly to do so, and is really just another form of tax:
- marriage license
- marriage certificate
- lawyers bills
- divorce filing
- divorce decree
- alimony
(note I don't include child support in this list--a separate matter entirely)

Why bother with all that. Just cohabitate. Stay together happily, or split up and go separate ways. Don't bother filing and updating your status with the government each time your life changes. It's none of their business.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...