Romy

Trolls. Trolls, trolls and trolls - A million times trolls.

Inequality is somewhat decreased.

Consider it a baby step then. Took the words right out of my mouth.

Same for me.

It's not about revenge though, not even the slightest. :thumbup:

I simply do not think it's discrimination, if you look at the bigger picture. But alright, let's agree to disagree.

It's the same thing - literally. No, affirmative action is benefitcial to those that were opressed. And by doing that, they are further discriminating - which is unacceptable. No, gays and heterosexuals now bring home the same amount of money, that's not further discriminating, that's, again, canceling discrimination. 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. Gay and straight employees of Google now bring home the same amount of cash. I see that as equality. Besides, Google will cretainly cancel that policy once the law treats everyone as equals. 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 was talking about dis-supporting gay marriage. So, "On a side note, I recall debating with you once about it, and what you said was that you disagree with the "gay lifestyle", but don't force your opinions on gays. Isn't that forcing your opinion?" 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. Providing "preferntial treatment for a certain demographic" is wrong, so long as that's not based on canceling out "preferential treatment for a certain demographic".

Yes, in the same way that not getting a tax break because I am not, and possibly never will be aboriginal, is oppression. That's, again, affirmative action. I agree, it isn't google's job to fix all that's wrong in the world. Thus, why they should not be paying homosexual employees more than straight ones. Again, the law is discriminating against gays, and Google is partially correcting that. As citizens, our duty is to change what the government isn't changing, and Google took that duty on itself. Large sponsors say otherwise. Indy, for example....doesn't sound right without the "Molson" in front of it. I may be wrong, I'm not even remotely close to being an expert at PR, that's just the way I read it - There's a bit of a hype over Google now because of it's new policy, and somehow I doubt there'd be this much hype if Google simply made donations to LGBT support groups. Outcry by discrimination is never valid, regardless of the the reason. I see nothing wrong with assisting gays economically on the basis of benefits they cannot get because of biased law enforcement. I'm afraid marriage is more than just a title. When there's inequality, there's inequality - If gays cannot marry, there you have it - Inequality. On a side note, I recall debating with you once about it, and what you said was that you disagree with the "gay lifestyle", but don't force your opinions on gays. Isn't that forcing your opinion? Marriage is more than just for childbearing. A lot more than that.

No, but not getting a tax break because you cannot and possibly never will be able to marry, is opression. Some of those are just, some aren't. Google is not the government, it's not Google's job to fix all that's wrong in the world. Unfair? Maybe, but they don't owe it to anyone. Accusing Google for being wrong by only helping out 1 group isn't unlike saying "Either you should go to all charity events, or go to none". Looking at this from a business' point of view, and assuming Google's intentions were actually PR, I think that's a smarter thing to do, PR-wise. Every other big company donates money to LGTB support groups, it's hardly going to get noticed. But when you do something like that - It should be (and as can be seen, is) noticable. Yes, they are "cancelling discrimination" by discriminating. That can never, ever, be effective. As I've said before, the road to equality is equality, not preferential treatment. But you, yourself, do not support that kind of equality, isn't that correct? And you're not on your own, many others disagree with full equality to gays, that's the reason many governments around the world enforce biased rules that counter equality. Google cannot change the law, but it can outcry against it. In a creative manner, may I add.

You're not oppressed for being aboriginal? Do you know an iota of north american history at all? You misread it: I know the definition of discriminatoy well enough. What I was talking about is the big picture. Gays are discriminated against by the law. If you examine Google's new policy on it's own, are heterosexuals discriminated? Yes. If you look at the whole picture, Google's simply partially cancelling out the discrimination against gays, which was my point.

Well put. I'm not against gay people in any way by the way :wink: . If the government doesn't supply the goods, the citizens shouldn't stay idle. And thinking something is "gross" is a rediculous reason to prevent tax benefits from it. Taxes are only an example of biased rules that make no sense and shouldn't even exist.

And I can never get aboriginal tax reduction benefits. It's exactly the same. It's not exactly the same, because that accounts as affirmative action - Which is where I didn't want to go, into whether or not affirmative action is justified. And besides, you're not oppressed for not being aboriginal, gays are opressed for being gays. Kudos for Google. If they really are doing it for PR purposes, I say they deserve the benefits. And in the end, they're not being discriminatory, they're partially correcting the discriminatory law.

[hide] This. Inequal treatment can never lead to equality - and that's exactly what this is. The governments shortcomings are not the business of private industry. Sometimes the government cannot supply what it's supposed to. That's when citizens (or in this case, Google) should take things to their own hands. People of middle eastern descent are often discriminated against at airports, and by police officers. Would you be supportive of a security company discriminating against Caucasians to restore the balance? I doubt it - but like many pro-homosexual activists, you'd see homosexuals put on a pedestal, while claiming equality is your goal. No, I wouldn't support it. But if any group's individuals (say a very religous group) received any taxing penallties simply for belonging to that group, and a company like Google helped them out, I'd support it. There's a definitive difference between taxing penalties and lack of tax benefits. Homosexuals do not pay more taxes, there is simply a tax benefit they are ineligible for. There are certain tax benefits that everyone is ineligible for, yet I don't see google offering to pay me more because I'm not eligible for the aboriginal tax reduction. [/hide] I see that as a penalty, because gays can never get these benefits. I'm not getting into the aboriginal tax reduction, that would go on for pages. EDIT: And by the way, Google's help here is more than the economical assistance. It's the, much more important, awareness that's spread.

This. Inequal treatment can never lead to equality - and that's exactly what this is. The governments shortcomings are not the business of private industry. Sometimes the government cannot supply what it's supposed to. That's when citizens (or in this case, Google) should take things to their own hands. People of middle eastern descent are often discriminated against at airports, and by police officers. Would you be supportive of a security company discriminating against Caucasians to restore the balance? I doubt it - but like many pro-homosexual activists, you'd see homosexuals put on a pedestal, while claiming equality is your goal. No, I wouldn't support it. But if any group's individuals (say a very religous group) received any taxing penallties simply for belonging to that group, and a company like Google helped them out, I'd support it.

Just another example of the blantant attacks on organized religion permeating the minds of those pro-gay rights. Just because you don't agree with someone's views doesn't mean you should call them a "nut". Have I ever called a gay person a "nut"? Despite me being a pretty vocal anti-gay marriage poster I've never stooped that low. I was merely quoting roccodog25. EDIT:

This. Inequal treatment can never lead to equality - and that's exactly what this is. The governments shortcomings are not the business of private industry. Sometimes the government cannot supply what it's supposed to. That's when citizens (or in this case, Google) should take things to their own hands.

I find that admirable, not necessarily because it was done specifically with gays. The fact that a company sees an unjust flaw in the law, knows it cannot change it, and takes things to it's own hands to reduce the negative impact. That's amazing.

I love how so many people jump for slight inequality against heterosexuals, and couldn't care less when it's severe inequality against homosexuals. Good move on Google's part. :thumbup:

First of all, today it's a legal contract and a legal status. Seperation of church and state should've been enforced ages ago. Secondly, there are churches that agree and accept gay marriage (few, but there are). If any specific church disagrees marrying a gay couple, fine, but they, again, shouldn't be the ones to decide they cannot marry at all. Lastly, Christianity did not invent marriage. They shouldn't have a veto. Certain historical religions actually allowed gay marriage.

Yea. you're right. and what the [bleep]? Black people wanna be called american? Their skin is black. they are obviously african. why not call them african and not american as long as they have the same rights. (I'm referring to nationality, not ethnicity) That is completely and utterly irrelevant. What is with the obsession with the word "marriage"? Is "civil partnership" so utterly unacceptable that you need to continue to fight so that you can change a few letters? I_Goddess_I had a quote in her signature for a while - "You give me some scenarios that you can live with, and I choose the one that I can live with. That's how compromise is supposed to work." Or something to that effect. Some scenarios the religious nuts can live with include, gays not getting married at all and gays being allowed to have "civil partnerships" which are identical to marriage. If you aren't willing to make a compromise then that's your problem. Let me use an analogy I've used before. The second you legally name a black man's job "Daily Work" - With the same wage, same hours every day, all rights are the same, but the name, you're classifying black people as second class citizens. It's as if they're not worthy of a job, only a "Daily Work". The same stands here. Equality can only be achieved when everyone is equal, on every level. Other than that- Why should gays be opressed in the name of keeping "Religous nuts" happy? They do not own marriage, they shouldn't be dictating who can or can't marry. If a church disagrees to marry a gay couple, fine, no one can stop them, but that doesn't mean the church can decide whether they can marry at all.

this never made sense to me. just because someone is gay doesn't take away their rights that i have It does though. Read the link in the first post.

I agree. Not letting gays actually marry isn't unlike classifying them as second class citizens when it comes to marriage. That's gay oppression, the way I see it.

I believe he was talking about this thread. Now, can we drop the subject and go back on topic guys?

That's just my opinion. Let's all get on topic, and stop discussing these minor, none important issues. ;)

I thought it deserved a thread of it's own. I don't see a problem.