obfuscator

That should probably work :P

I don't change the sheets on my bed too often, but holy [cabbage], 2 years?

This. If she doesn't like you, fine - she's proven to you she wasn't worth it anyway. You can't beat yourself up over it, you'll find someone else.

6

7/10

If I knit, am I eligible?

couldn't care less* Sorry someone had to grammar Nazi. I thought they'd changed this ages ago for some reason.....

I can't see it working, drawball two is a huge mess. I'll give it a shot anyway.

Jopie come back :( There's a dutch part of tif? ;)

Well it's the back end that's more comparable to php so if C# is his language of choice then it's a fair call. But yeah, don't know how you can make a cost comparison.

People have a right to stand up against something they (and the way nature works, actually) disagree with too. Of course they do - right to protest is ingrained into a democratic society and I wouldn't dream of restricting it for anyone.

Straight married couples don't need access to the fund as they already get the tax break. Straight couples who are listed as in a domestic partnership on their health insurance plan don't have access to it, I think they should. So literally no one should be helped because everyone isn't helped? no change should be made because it isnt perfect? I never said no change should be made, in my opinion preferential treatment for a certain demographic is never acceptable.

Sorry, I missed that. I'll respond here. The reason I'm not in favour of this, which I've iterated before, is that it champions discrimination as a way to counteract discrimination. Unequal treatment can never lead to equality. If this was for any other demographic I'd be against it as well. I'm fully aware of exactly what's happening. Gay couples have access to a fund that straight couples don't have access to. Therefore, this is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I understand this point, and like I said before, I wish Google would reimburse those people too. Those people shouldn't be forced into marriage to receive the tax break. But they won't, because they aren't gay.

The point I'm trying to make is that discrimination is never fair, even if its purpose is to combat discrimination.

Do homosexuals have to "prove" they're in a relationship to recieve the benefit? I doubt it. So any homosexual receives this benefit. To be heterosexual and get it, you can't be single. You can't even be in a committed relationship - you have to be married. And yes, if gay marriage is legalized, the same tax benefits should apply.

Thanks for ignoring the fact that gay people live with inequality, and that Google is doing what it can to fight against that inequality. Should people just deal with inequality until politicians get around to fixing it? Not necessarily. Should google solve inequality by permeating more inequality?

Everyone goes home with the same amount of money. If Google didnt do this, gay couples would go home with less money. Not equality. Thank you, at least someone gets it Oh, I get it, but I think the change should happen where the inequality is, not by further unequal treatment. And yes, straight couples who aren't married suffer as well. So people should continue to live with inequality until politicians get around to fixing it? and who knows how long that'll take. The extra money the gay couples get goes to taxes. They don't benefit from it or anything. It's just like Google paying the couple's taxes that they shouldn't have to pay. I wish Google would do this for straight domestic partnerships aswell. Don't we all....but that will never happen, because they aren't gay, and google couldn't reap the PR benefits from doing so.

Everyone goes home with the same amount of money. If Google didnt do this, gay couples would go home with less money. Not equality. Thank you, at least someone gets it Oh, I get it, but I think the change should happen where the inequality is, not by further unequal treatment. And yes, straight couples who aren't married suffer as well.

I am aware that it doesn't affect me personally as I don't work for Google. My point is that while this is great for one demographic, another is being discriminated against. I want people to receive the same compensation, for the same amount of work, regardless of race, colour, creed, age, orientation, or whatever - in other words, equality.

So what are you trying to say here?

That quote is meant to indicate a life led by and motivated by revenge can never be a full and happy one - and I agree, personally. Look at one of the most effective protestors in history - Mahatma Gandhi. He didn't protest with an eye for an eye, he protested peacefully, stubbornly, not motivated by revenge. Look at how successful he was.

Well it could also be said its fighting fire with fire. Or even an eye for an eye mentality. (In a sense) Which I DO agree with. My only problem with affirmative action nowadays is that theres thankfully not that much racial discrimination in the professional sense. IS there a lot? Perhaps, depending on the area, but it's drastically reduced over simply 50 years. Thats VERY fast for a racial dispute if you look back at history. Yes, but look at the end result of eye for eye - "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Well, I was writing a response when I realized that this is going nowhere. Bottom line - you think discrimination is an acceptable method of protesting discrimination. I don't - as that's not going to change I think this is where "agree to disagree" should appear.

North America as well. If this was an issue of race, my position would be exactly the same - if google were to pay people of african descent more money than those of other ethnicities, I'd fight it tooth and nail such as I do so here. It's the same thing - literally. And by doing that, they are further discriminating - which is unacceptable. You may be correct - but that still doesn't mean its acceptable. If it was merely a question of assisting those struggling financially, I'd agree. It still doesn't change the fact google is doing the reverse of what homosexuals have struggled against for so long - preferential pay for those in certain demographics. No, this is standing up for something I believe in - the main point being that regardless of what you consider to be inequality - it cannot be fixed by discrimination and further inequality. I'm not going to continue this debate, as we've already done so - this conversation is simply about whether it is morally equitable to provide preferential treatment for a certain demographic.