Google is pretty cool

[obfuscator]

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?

 

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.

[Spiffeh]

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?

 

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.

[obfuscator]

 

"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.

 

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

[Spiffeh]

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

""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.

[OldJoe]

^Again, what about the straight people in a domestic partnership? How aren't they discriminated (love the word)?

[Spiffeh]

^Again, what about the straight people in a domestic partnership? How aren't they discriminated (love the word)?

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.

[obfuscator]

^Again, what about the straight people in a domestic partnership? How aren't they discriminated (love the word)?

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.

[Spiffeh]

^Again, what about the straight people in a domestic partnership? How aren't they discriminated (love the word)?

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."

[OldJoe]

^Again, what about the straight people in a domestic partnership? How aren't they discriminated (love the word)?

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.

It wouldn't be difficult to fix both ends (government/company). Altho from the posts that popped up here a few months ago, there seem to be more states allowing gay/trans people marrying in the U.S (i'm not American so i don't read alot of your news).

[obfuscator]

 

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."

 

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.

 

""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.

 

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.

[Bloodstain]

^Again, what about the straight people in a domestic partnership? How aren't they discriminated (love the word)?

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.

 

They won't because those people can just get married, homosexuals don't have that option. I mean, how many people do you know who aren't married that pay their taxes jointly? It still sucks, but homosexuals don't have that option to get married, so yes some couples who never plan to get married may suffer, but that's an incredibly small amount of people I'm guessing. Give homosexuals marriage rights, get rid of what google is doing now, everyone wins. But that will never happen because America is populated by a bunch of gray people who hide their hate by using the excuse of "it's against Christianity!"

[Spiffeh]

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.

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?

[obfuscator]

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.

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.

[Spiffeh]

I never said no change should be made, in my opinion preferential treatment for a certain demographic is never acceptable.

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.

[Zierro]

I would sue Google for discrimination if I worked there. Also, how does the company know the sexuel preference of their employees? That's a breach of privacy rights.

 

All they're doing is evening out the pay. There is no discrimination anywhere.

 

They're being hypocrites. They are also probably screwing over heterosexual employees who support gay rights.

 

I think gays should have equal rights, but discriminating against heterosexuals is not the way to go.

[Saru Inc]

^Again, what about the straight people in a domestic partnership? How aren't they discriminated (love the word)?

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.

 

 

No, but because no straight people are in DPS. and don't show me the 5 that are. It's not practical. And because they are CHOOSING NOT TO GET MARRIED. (Yes I am aware gay people can get married in like 8 states, what I am implying is they are choosing to not get the tax benefits.) Gay people have no choice. (Aka no ability to get the benefits no matterwhat)

 

Y guy you have used the same argument since page 1 and everyone is proving you wrong but instead you say this:

 

It's A

 

We say: It's B

 

No it's not its C!

 

No... it's B...

 

NO its not its d!

 

No... It's B...

 

No! ITS A!!!

 

No... it's B...

 

NO ITS C!!

 

And on and on and on.

 

And meb, the information is volunteered, its a fund. They have to go there and be like "We're in a DP kid" and then they say "o heres some benjamins" "k thnx" it's not a breach pf privacy if the information is offered.

 

Zierro, they're not being hypocrites. The whole idea of a fund is the basis that gays have no ability to be married. (Or if they do, they have no way of getting the tax break no matter what) Straights DO get the tax breaks. Google noticed that, and is lending a helping hand.'

 

 

haters gonna hate.

 

 

would anyone complain of a wheelchair ramp? Why? They can choose to go up the stairs. And besides, if the paralyzed person could just walk, that would leave more free space around the entrance in general. damn quadriplegics. Where's Jesus when you need him.

[Zierro]

Zierro, they're not being hypocrites. The whole idea of a fund is the basis that gays have no ability to be married. (Or if they do, they have no way of getting the tax break no matter what) Straights DO get the tax breaks. Google noticed that, and is lending a helping hand.'

 

It's quite apparent what their intentions were. 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. No hypocrisy there?

[Spiffeh]

Zierro, they're not being hypocrites. The whole idea of a fund is the basis that gays have no ability to be married. (Or if they do, they have no way of getting the tax break no matter what) Straights DO get the tax breaks. Google noticed that, and is lending a helping hand.'

 

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.

[Saru Inc]

Nope. Because they aren't treating gays better. thats the point. lrn2read

[Zierro]

A gay union doesnt have the same rights a straight union does, google says "wow that sucks", and offers to make things fair.

 

Make things fair? Since when is intentionally discriminating against heterosexuals making things fair? Because now it's our time to suffer?

 

Nope. Because they aren't treating gays better. thats the point. lrn2read

 

Damn, you're the best debater on this site. rofl

 

I find that quite an amusing post coming from the person who said:

 

Y guy you have used the same argument since page 1 and everyone is proving you wrong but instead you say this:

 

It's A

 

We say: It's B

 

No it's not its C!

 

No... it's B...

 

NO its not its d!

 

No... It's B...

 

No! ITS A!!!

 

No... it's B...

 

NO ITS C!!

 

And on and on and on.

 

Anyway, to reply to your rebuttal that gays aren't being treated better:

 

Google is not offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because the company said heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

[Spiffeh]

Make things fair? Since when is intentionally discriminating against heterosexuals making things fair? Because now it's our time to suffer?

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.

[Zierro]

How does this make heterosexuals suffer? If youre going to talk about straight domestic partnerships, then ookay, weve been over this.

 

I probably should have been more specific instead of just saying "heteros", but yes. This is the sentence where this one-sided discrimination I'm talking about comes from:

 

Google is not offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because the company said heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

 

They know that gays can't marry, so they make a rule where you don't have to be married to reap the benefits (as long as you are gay and not straight). That screams discrimination and hypocrisy. By completely neglecting those straight people, it sounds more like they wanted a clever little ploy to use against anti-gay people rather than actually wanting to make things fair and equal.

 

And for that matter, what about asexuals? (If they really do exist, that is. :-o )

[Wizz]

I think it be less of an argument if they raise or remove the benefits of a straight married couple and lower/do nothing to the domestic partnership to even it out a bit.

Of course this is a less argument sake, never going to happen.

[Spiffeh]

 

I probably should have been more specific instead of just saying "heteros", but yes. This is the sentence where this one-sided discrimination I'm talking about comes from:

 

Google is not offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because the company said heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

 

 

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?

[Saru Inc]

A gay union doesnt have the same rights a straight union does, google says "wow that sucks", and offers to make things fair.

 

Make things fair? Since when is intentionally discriminating against heterosexuals making things fair? Because now it's our time to suffer?

 

Nope. Because they aren't treating gays better. thats the point. lrn2read

 

Damn, you're the best debater on this site. rofl

 

Anyway, to reply to your rebuttal that gays aren't being treated better:

 

Google is not offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because the company said heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

 

zing? I guess so

 

If you can't understand the core principles of justice Zierro, then I guess we're all just at a loss.