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.

I simply do not think it's discrimination, if you look at the bigger picture.

 

 

But alright, let's agree to disagree.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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".

Yea I don't believe in that quote at all. Because I believe there should still be common sense with the eye for an eye.

Yea I don't believe in that quote at all. Because I believe there should still be common sense with the eye for an eye.

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.

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

Yea ghandi always seemed a bit overrated to me. And what I mean with common sense is, if you kill someone, you die. But if lets say the run out in front of your car and theres NO way you could have stopped. You're not going to get killed. And also what Romy said.

Yea ghandi always seemed a bit overrated to me. And what I mean with common sense is, if you kill someone, you die. But if lets say the run out in front of your car and theres NO way you could have stopped. You're not going to get killed. And also what Romy said.

So what are you trying to say here?

Yea ghandi always seemed a bit overrated to me. And what I mean with common sense is, if you kill someone, you die. But if lets say the run out in front of your car and theres NO way you could have stopped. You're not going to get killed. And also what Romy said.

So what are you trying to say here?

That the eye for an eye has some sort of reasonable jurisdiction if brought into justice.

google is a pretty cool guy guy

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?

 

 

The only two demographics that this applies to is married couples, because it is a tax break relating to paying on each others health benefits. Heterosexual couples get the break, homosexual couples don't because they are homosexual. As a straight, unmarried person this tax break does not effect you one iota.

 

If it were white married couples who got the break and not black married couples would you still be against this? Homosexuals aren't making more money, google is just making sure they take home the same pay as the other people.

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.

 

The only two demographics that this applies to is married couples, because it is a tax break relating to paying on each others health benefits. Heterosexual couples get the break, homosexual couples don't because they are homosexual. As a straight, unmarried person this tax break does not effect you one iota.

 

If it were white married couples who got the break and not black married couples would you still be against this? Homosexuals aren't making more money, google is just making sure they take home the same pay as the other people.

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.

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.

 

Everyone goes home with the same amount of money.

 

If Google didnt do this, gay couples would go home with less money. Not equality.

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.

 

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

But it's not equality since straight couples have to be married to get the tax break, being in a domestic partnership for straight people would mean less money in the end.

But it's not equality since straight couples have to be married to get the tax break, being in a domestic partnership for straight people would mean less money in the end.

 

That would be the only downside to this, however straight domestic partners have the option of marriage while homosexual ones don't. Of course that still doesn't help the straight couples who prefer DP over marriage, although I'm guessing that is a minuscule amount. Solution would be to give homosexuals marriage rights, but of course that's not going to happen

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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?

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

 

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

RACIST.

 

 

On topic. Google sees outside the box.

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.

 

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?

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.

 

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?