Spiffeh

Why do you care so much what other people do with their genitals? Like seriously... who cares. if you claim not to care, dont make legislation that discriminates against them. You can make an argument about nature, but who cares. be it a choice or not, thats how theyre going to live their lives, and no one has any right to discriminate them.

The gay partners have to be listed as domestic partners, in a civil union, or married on their health insurance plan. Also, they don't get payed more. They just have access to a fund that'll pay the tax they aren't exempt from. People still might marry their same race so they can get the tax exemptions from being in a gay union. I mean, that's quite a big benefit. Haha I think you mean gender. yeah, and a guy and a girl could marry to get the same tax exemptions, not sure what youre getting at.

The gay partners have to be listed as domestic partners, in a civil union, or married on their health insurance plan. Also, they don't get payed more. They just have access to a fund that'll pay the tax they aren't exempt from.

I said before that I think heterosexual domestic partners should receive this help too. Okay, gay people literally do not have the right to receive this tax break. straight people in domestic partnerships could get it if they wanted to, but I don't think you can force people to marry. that's a somewhat questionable part of this change, but should that derail the whole thing? gay people don't have equal rights, and Google is doing what it can to fight against that. Can't you take that as a good thing, atleast?

How does this make heterosexuals suffer? If youre going to talk about straight domestic partnerships, then ookay, weve been over this. Before this change, only straight marriages benefited. With this change, straight marriages, gay civil unions, gay domestic partnerships, and gay marriages benefit. nothing was changed regarding straight marriages or single straight people. nothing was changed regarding single gay people. straight domestic partnerships - before this change, one group (straight marriages) benefited. after this change, two 'groups' (straight marriages and gay civil unions, gay domestic partnerships, and gay marriages) benefit. straight domestic partnerships have had nothing negative happen to them, they just didn't benefit from the change. i think straight domestic partnerships should be included in this, but I'm not the CEO of Google. how can you not be happy about a little bit of progress, youre looking for a reason to be mad.

They see heteros are being treated better than gays. They do not like this. To combat this, they make a new rule where gays are being treated better than heteros. They're doing exactly what they are against. I mean, it's quite apparent what their intentions were. No hypocrisy there? Do you really see things that black and white? Gay people literally do not have access to the same rights heterosexuals do. A gay union doesnt have the same rights a straight union does, google says "wow that sucks", and offers to make things fair.

Were you okay with the situation before Google made this change? because thatd be preferential treatment to straight marriages. Now it's changed to give help to 2 out of the 3 groups, and you have a problem with it. people didnt seem to mind when only straight marriages were being helped. There was a bill, the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, that would "equalize tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners and other non-spouse, non-dependent beneficiaries." gay or straight, but it got shot down.

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 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. I like how you skip my other post. So is that the only reason you arent in favor of this change, because it doesn't cover straight domestic partnerships too? Helping one of the two discriminated groups isnt bad, and I hope they'll go back and help the others. Straight domestic partnerships have a way to avoid the tax, although I don't think they should have to get married to do so. Gay partners have no way to avoid the tax. You're more or less saying "because this doesn't also help the people who have a legal way to avoid the tax, Google shouldnt do it at all. Helping the more severely discriminated is discrimination against those who are less discriminated. lets help no one."

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.

""We're not increasing their salary,'' the spokesman said. "Rather, it's a separate sum employees will be getting, so basically Google is offering reimbursement for the tax, much like a company would reimburse employees for their cell phone or their Internet bill at home.''" Everyone gets paid the same, there's just a separate fund that a gay couple can go to and ask for. They can only ask for it if they're listed as in a domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage on their health insurance plan. how is this discrimination? google is offering to pay a tax for gay couples that are listed in a domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage on their health insurance plan. straight couples don't have to pay the tax.

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. "Same-sex couples who include domestic partners on their health insurance pay federal taxes." I'm sure Google will check it through their health insurance. They'd have to be domestic partners, in a civil union, or in a marriage. Not any homosexual gets it, homosexuals who file their taxes jointly, and are listed as in a domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage on their health insurance, get it. To be homosexual and get it, you can't be single. You cant even be in a committed relationship - you have to be in a domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage, and have your significant other on your health insurance plan. That's not really what I asked.

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. Let's say a straight couple makes $100,000 a year. With the tax break, they keep all of that $100,000. (forgetting about other taxes) Now, a gay couple making $100,000 a year. With no tax break, because they don't have the same rights and privileges as straight couples, they end up with, say, $95,000. Google pays them a little bit more, and they end up with $100,000 a year too. People get payed different amounts, but because some people have to pay taxes they shouldn't have to, everyone ends up with the same amount. It won't be true equality until the law is changed so gay couples get the same tax breaks as straights, but until then, Google is doing what it can to make things fair. Do you think gay couples should get the same tax breaks as straight couples?

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?

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.

Everyone goes home with the same amount of money. If Google didnt do this, gay couples would go home with less money. Not equality.

Straight couples get a tax break. Gay couples do not have the right to marry, and because of that the don't get a tax break. Google pays gay couple more to make up for the tax break they shouldve received. Everyone goes home with the same amount of money. If youre saying Google shouldnt be paying the gay couple more, youre saying gay couples should have to pay more taxes. Google is helping gay couples out with taxes they shouldnt have to pay, and for that I think theyre Pretty Cool.

Let's put it like this, Straight couple gets financial support to install solar panels.(tax break) Gay couple doesn't get financial support to install solar panels.(no tax break) Company reimburses gay couple for the financial support they shouldve received. whats wrong with that

More or less the same thing. Gay married couple has to pay taxes that a straight married couple doesn't, Google decides to compensate them for it, pretty cool.

Was mostly directed toward 321Ownage.

Looks like my questions were ignored, guess I'll ask again. Can a business refuse to hire homosexual people? If so, can they refuse to hire black people? Following that line of thinking, can a business deny service to customers based on race? Can I make a policy that says "We won't ask you about your religious beliefs, but if you bring them up, you can be kicked out"? Are heterosexual couples more "special" or more "deserving" than homosexual couples?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html "Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates." http://scienceray.com/biology/gay-animals-on-parade/ "The female monkeys, however, will form intense lesbian relationships that last for a few days to several months." "Carlos and Fernando are the names of two male flamingos that are resident at the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust in the UK. They have been together for eight years and first came out, as it were, in 2001." "Notably, straight flamingos stay together for the mating season and then go their separate ways, choosing a new partner the year after. Carlos and Fernando are unique as their love has endured the passing of the years." "These companionships are much more than just two buddies sharing a dorm, the older elephant will regularly initiate sex with the younger ones. When elephants engage in heterosexual mating the coupling is fleeting but the male buddies will often stay with each other for many years."

I understand what you're saying, if a business won't hire a certain person because of their sexual preference or race, they lose the good work etc that person would have done. And probably receive public backlash too. But why is it okay to deny certain people? If a business denies service to a certain type of people, you may call it bad business, but do they have the right to do that? are you rand paul The point isn't "if they want to give blood so bad, they can lie", it's there is no reason for them to need to lie. So yeah, would be nice to get it changed. So do heterosexual couples "deserve" to have marriage to keep them "special"? What else do homosexuals want to take away, causing others to lose their speciality? Civil partnerships are different because they have a different name, much like the idea of "separate but equal", if something is separate, it isn't equal. So can I make a policy that says "We won't ask you about your religious beliefs, but if you bring them up, you can be kicked out"? What are you saying. As I'm reading it, you're saying giving homosexuals rights would make heterosexual's rights less "special", and therefore they don't deserve those rights? Getting everyone to the same "amount" of rights does not mean taking rights away, a la athletes wearing weights.

If a place makes it known that they don't/won't hire blacks, everyone should just suck it up right? If you're gay and want to give blood, you would have to lie to the doctor. Despite the fact that anyone, gay or straight, could have AIDS or something, let's single out that group of people. Hmm the article says nothing of the actions of the people, why're you attributing what happened to the peoples actions when you have no idea what they did or did not do? That section is a little confusing though. Yeah who cares about equality, who cares if some people don't have the same rights as others. Who cares if a gay person doesn't have the right to visit their partner in the hospital? Please explain to me why you do not support equality. Why should people have to hide their identities? I wouldn't want to be stuck with someone who's always espousing their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I can have a discriminatory policy against them. By the way, even casually admitting that you are gay in the military can get you kicked out. You don't have to be the "flamboyant" stereotype.

I know, it's just ridiculous to deny a child a loving home because the society around it is bigoted. Society is in the wrong, but the child and parents are the ones who suffer.