Google is pretty cool

[Saru Inc]

Another gay topic? Jeez. Let's turn OT into a Gay Rights forum.

 

And yes, this post totally means I'm homophobic btw.

 

 

omfg yesh u ar!!!! kill him! serve him with spaghetti sauce and eat him alaive@@@@@@@@@

 

 

 

Lol. I actually don't like this. Here's why: We don't want to be different. DOn't pay us more =\ Just DECREASE the same sex tax. Ta-da.

make us equal. don't pay us more. but don't tax us more. HOwever, I do appreciate googles state of mind :) AND EPIC SEARCHES

 

 

edit: rofl'd my pants off @ wizz kid

[Bloodstain]

Okay so it's only for domestic partnerships. And against the government.

 

Nothing wrong with that.

 

Government treating people different based on sexual preference.

 

Nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Nothing wrong with Googles decision. Jeez. >_>

 

If you're first thing I quoted wasn't sarcasm, then sorry I thought it was.

 

 

Lol. I actually don't like this. Here's why: We don't want to be different. DOn't pay us more =\ Just DECREASE the same sex tax. Ta-da.

make us equal. don't pay us more. but don't tax us more. HOwever, I do appreciate googles state of mind :) AND EPIC SEARCHES

 

Google can't do that though, they are doing everything in their power to even things out though

[Saru Inc]

No I know, I just meant they shouldn't have to do it, the gov't shouldn't tax them on their time spent in bed.

[Giordano]

it wasn't sarcasm, but nevermind though.

 

Again, Saru, there is no gay tax, just the lack of tax reduction via marriage...cuz gays can't marry.

 

Now, what Google has done, is that since the government can't fix things, we have to fix the laws into our own hands.

[Romy]

it wasn't sarcasm, but nevermind though.

 

Again, Saru, there is no gay tax, just the lack of tax reduction via marriage...cuz gays can't marry.

 

Now, what Google has done, is that since the government can't fix things, we have to fix the laws into our 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.

[obfuscator]

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.

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.

[Romy]

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.

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.

[obfuscator]

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.

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.

[Romy]

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.

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.

[obfuscator]

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.

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.

[Romy]

[hide]

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.

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.

[obfuscator]

 

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.

And I can never get aboriginal tax reduction benefits. It's exactly the same.

 

This is a PR move by google to cater to the growing crowd of pro-gay rights activists (not a bad thing) but they are using illegitimate means, which only end up being discriminatory.

[meb]

The thing is that this measure doesn't solve any problems. People aren't opposed to gay marriage because they strongly believe in more taxes for gay people. They're against gay marriage because they think it's gross. The pay raise isn't going to change their minds, the contrary would be more true. It is up to the government to change the marriage law. The issue isn't taxes, the issues is homophobicness (is that a word? probably not). This pay raise doesn't make life easier for homosexuals it's only putting more oil on the fire.

 

Unequal treatment can never lead to equality - and that's exactly what this is. The governments shortcomings are not the business of private industry.

Well put.

 

 

I'm not against gay people in any way by the way :wink: .

[Romy]

 

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.

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.

 

This is a PR move by google to cater to the growing crowd of pro-gay rights activists (not a bad thing) but they are using illegitimate means, which only end up being discriminatory.

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.

[Romy]

The thing is that this measure doesn't solve any problems. People aren't opposed to gay marriage because they strongly believe in more taxes for gay people. They're against gay marriage because they think it's gross. The pay raise isn't going to change their minds, the contrary would be more true. It is up to the government to change the marriage law. The issue isn't taxes, the issues is homophobicness (is that a word? probably not). This pay raise doesn't make life easier for homosexuals it's only putting more oil on the fire.

 

Unequal treatment can never lead to equality - and that's exactly what this is. The governments shortcomings are not the business of private industry.

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.

[obfuscator]

 

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.

 

You're not oppressed for being aboriginal? Do you know an iota of north american history at all?

 

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.

 

Have you looked up the definition of discrimination? I somehow doubt it, so I'll list it for you.

 

dis·crim·i·na·tion   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA

–noun

 

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

 

"Making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing, based on a group to which that person belongs rather than individual merit"

 

Paying homosexuals more because they are homosexual is the very essence of discrimination.

[Romy]

 

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.

 

You're not oppressed for being aboriginal? Do you know an iota of north american history at all?

 

You misread it:

 

 

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.

 

 

Have you looked up the definition of discrimination? I somehow doubt it, so I'll list it for you.

 

dis·crim·i·na·tion   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA

–noun

 

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

 

"Making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing, based on a group to which that person belongs rather than individual merit"

 

Paying homosexuals more because they are homosexual is the very essence of discrimination.

 

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.

[obfuscator]

You misread it:

 

 

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.

 

If not getting a tax break is oppression, which is what you appear to think based on your support for Google's policy, then I am oppressed.

 

A certain demographic gets a tax break that I don't - why isn't Google supplementing my income to offset that?

 

I maintain this was a PR move by Google - a much better one would have been to sponsor pride parades, make donations to LGTB support groups - all things that don't discriminate against non-homosexuals.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Romy]

If not getting a tax break is oppression, which is what you appear to think based on your support for Google's policy, then I am oppressed.

 

No, but not getting a tax break because you cannot and possibly never will be able to marry, is opression.

 

A certain demographic gets a tax break that I don't - why isn't Google supplementing my income to offset that?

 

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".

 

I maintain this was a PR move by Google - a much better one would have been to sponsor pride parades, make donations to LGTB support groups - all things that don't discriminate against non-homosexuals.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

[obfuscator]

 

No, but not getting a tax break because you cannot and possibly never will be able to marry, is opression.

 

Yes, in the same way that not getting a tax break because I am not, and possibly never will be aboriginal, is oppression.

 

 

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".

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Large sponsors say otherwise.

 

Indy, for example....doesn't sound right without the "Molson" in front of it.

 

 

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.

Outcry by discrimination is never valid, regardless of the the reason.

 

The only equality I don't support for homosexuals is marriage - simply because I believe it's between a man and a woman for purposes of childbearing. I have always supported all other rights for homosexuals and homosexual couples.

[Saru Inc]

This argumetn is like the same posts with different wording all it is is:

 

Discrimination

 

no it isn't

 

yes it is

 

no it isn't

 

yes it is

 

no it isn't

 

yes it is

 

no it isn't

 

AMG YES!!!!!! <--- my post

 

Anyways, as stated earlier I don't really support this, because I like the idea of gays blending into society. And this kinda makes us stand out, and look like douchebags who whine when we don't get our way. Once the gov't fixes this google should (and they probably will) stop this immediately. But i think if it was a issue of race instead orientation Y guy would be more open.

 

 

Also: aren't aboriginals only in Australia?

[Romy]

 

No, but not getting a tax break because you cannot and possibly never will be able to marry, is opression.

 

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.

 

 

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".

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

The only equality I don't support for homosexuals is marriage

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?

 

- simply because I believe it's between a man and a woman for purposes of childbearing. I have always supported all other rights for homosexuals and homosexual couples.

Marriage is more than just for childbearing. A lot more than that.

[obfuscator]

 

Anyways, as stated earlier I don't really support this, because I like the idea of gays blending into society. And this kinda makes us stand out, and look like douchebags who whine when we don't get our way. Once the gov't fixes this google should (and they probably will) stop this immediately. But i think if it was a issue of race instead orientation Y guy would be more open.

 

 

Also: aren't aboriginals only in Australia?

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.

 

 

 

That's, again, affirmative action.

 

It's the same thing - literally.

 

 

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.

 

And by doing that, they are further discriminating - which is unacceptable.

 

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.

 

You may be correct - but that still doesn't mean its acceptable.

 

 

I see nothing wrong with assisting gays economically on the basis of benefits they cannot get because of biased law enforcement.

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

marriage is much more than childbearing

 

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.

[Romy]

 

 

That's, again, affirmative action.

 

It's the same thing - literally.

 

No, affirmative action is benefitcial to those that were opressed.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

I see nothing wrong with assisting gays economically on the basis of benefits they cannot get because of biased law enforcement.

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

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?"

 

marriage is much more than childbearing

 

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".

[Saru Inc]

Ok yea I agree with Romy. Not that it matters.