Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 17:54 UTC
Google Fantastic initiative by Google. Anna Peirano details: "Google is launching a new campaign called 'Legalize Love' with the intention of inspiring countries to legalize marriage for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people around the world. The 'Legalize Love' campaign officially launches in Poland and Singapore on Saturday, July 7th. Google intends to eventually expand the initiative to every country where the company has an office, and will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist." As proud as I am of living in the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, it's easy to forget we only did so in 2000. Also, it's about time the large technology companies of the world started using their power, reach, and money to do good. Hopefully, this initiative will transcend company boundaries, uniting them behind a common, noble goal.
Order by: Score:
A few thoughts
by darknexus on Sun 8th Jul 2012 18:47 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

First, I don't believe this is something Google should be getting involved with. They're a technology company, not an advocacy group.
More importantly, I have another idea on how to deal with this mess. We don't need to legalize gay marriage, nor any other type of marriage. What we need to do is to separate the concept of Marriage and that of civil partnerships. Marriage, by definition, is a religious observance and therefore should be controlled entirely by your religion, if you have one. That means that the concept of "gay marriage" as it is commonly referred to would be dependent on which religion you are a part of. A marriage, however, would not gain you the same type of benefits as a civil partnership. I would define this concept as what marriage can give you now: right to visit at any time in hospitals, joint bank accounts, etc. These two would be by no means exclusive, but nor would they be connected. A civil partnership could be between two (or more, if that's what you want) people be they men, women, or a combination. Marriage would then be entirely outside the domain of your government and only observed within your church or religion. I think that would neatly solve this problem once and for all, assuming we can get the religious conservatives who think that faith should control everything out of our way.

Score: 25

RE: A few thoughts
by dylansmrjones on Sun 8th Jul 2012 19:09 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Agree. Sums up my opinions pretty well.

Imagine 4 men entering a group civil partnership with 7 women, with all 4 men and 7 women 'marrying' each other. Men with men and women, and women with men and women. That's going to one heck of a partnership :p

Score: 5

RE[2]: A few thoughts
by henderson101 on Mon 9th Jul 2012 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: A few thoughts"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Did you ever watch Caprica?

Score: 2

RE[3]: A few thoughts
by dylansmrjones on Mon 9th Jul 2012 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A few thoughts"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Naah, only the beginning of the first episode.

Score: 2

RE: A few thoughts
by Luke McCarthy on Sun 8th Jul 2012 19:09 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
Luke McCarthy Member since:
2005-07-06

Excellent idea. This whole issue is really a bunch of nonsense and this would put an end to it.

Score: 4

RE: A few thoughts
by No it isnt on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:07 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Personally, I think it's pretty cool that Google is a company with values, that dares to take a stand. It's one of the things that made Google cool before it went public, and it's awesome (and rare, I believe) that it still has values as a public corporation. Other giants limit their political manoeuvring to whatever is profitable for them (publishing giant Elsevier lobbying to limit public access to research, for instance).

Now, perhaps having values that I agree with is awesome marketing as well, and that may or may not corrupt the value as such. In this case, I don't believe it does.

As for keeping civil partnerships and marriage separate under law, that's at least superficially the best solution. Then again, many homosexuals would probably prefer having equal rights to the sanctity of marriage as well, and being denied that right while getting the substitute of civil partnerships may feel limiting to some -- and in the end, equal rights does mean equal rights in every respect.

Not that I personally disagree with you, as I consider religions silly and think people would be better off staying away from them. Preaching atheism, however, is something I don't think will make the world a better place. Equal rights, on the other hand, is something I can support even when it fails.

Score: 7

RE: A few thoughts
by JAlexoid on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:01 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I agree on the position that it's the government's responsibility to register a union. What type of union it is and how it works, should not be the responsibility of the government.

That way, Arabs that want to have many wives can have many wives, gay men can be in a union with another gay man, a straight man can be in a union with another straight man(why not?) and so on. (I use "man" as a human, not male)

I mean, we already have corporations and each one of them is a legal person. Just extend something similar to people.

However, that Google shouldn't be doing it is not a reasonable position. Otherwise they should be in China and collaborating with PRC on filtering the web. While Brin is at Google, there will be this side to Google.

Edited 2012-07-08 23:02 UTC

Score: 2

RE[2]: A few thoughts
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE: A few thoughts"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree on the position that it's the government's responsibility to register a union. What type of union it is and how it works, should not be the responsibility of the government.


This is how it works in The Netherlands. We have legal marriage, and ceremonial marriage.

The legal wedding is the only one that has legal meaning. It is performed by a government official, and has all the legal standing usually associated with marriage. Since the first article of our Constitution guarantees unconditional equality for all Dutch citizens, the legal marriage cannot exclude same-sex marriage.

The ceremonial wedding, which can be performed by a priest, rabbi, or whatever, has zero legal status. It has no legal meaning whatsoever. A couple which only holds a ceremonial wedding is not married as far as the state is concerned.

The end result is that religious couples usually do a quick legal wedding at city hall in the morning, only to hold a big ceremonial wedding at the church later that same day, with all the guests and egards. Couples who are not religious usually seek out a beautiful building or outdoor location, and 'rent' the government official, and turn the legal wedding into the big ordeal a wedding usually is. You can even do a quick legal wedding at city hall in the morning, and then a large non-religious ceremonial wedding at a beautiful location presided over by whomever.

The gives freedom to everybody, and ensures the clear separation between church and state - as it should be. This is 2012, this is no time for theocracies anymore.

Score: 5

RE[3]: A few thoughts
by OMRebel on Mon 9th Jul 2012 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A few thoughts"
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

This is how it works in The Netherlands. We have legal marriage, and ceremonial marriage.


Why can't both be legally recognized? As a Christian, I believe that marriage is a union before God. When my wife and I got married, it was done so in my church with our pastor conducting the marriage service. I do not believe that right should be taken away from anyone, no matter how things are done in a different country.

Of course, you can always go to the Justice of the Peace in the US and get married in the office without having any type of ceremony if you wish.

To take away my right, as a Christian, in which the traditional wedding no longer holds any legally recognized meaning isn't extending my rights - but taking them away.

Having said all of that - I have zero problem with two people of the same sex getting married to each other. That is their choice, and it is NOT up to me to say they shouldn't be able to do so. What they chose to do has zero effect upon me or my marriage, and I wish them all of the happiness in the world.

Score: 2

RE[4]: A few thoughts
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Jul 2012 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A few thoughts"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

To take away my right, as a Christian, in which the traditional wedding no longer holds any legally recognized meaning isn't extending my rights - but taking them away.


As far as I know, this has always been that way in The Netherlands. In fact, I believe this is common in many European countries, and, like so many other civil things, is probably Napoleonic.

The problem with your concept is that because marriage entitles you to state benefits and rights, it must be performed by the state. We have a very, very clear separation between church and state, so the church performing rites or signing documents that give you state benefits and rights is wholly incompatible with out legal system, government structure, and so on.

UPDATE: Turns out it's indeed Napoleonic, but on top of that, the Protestant leader Calvin (deeply religious!), who has had a tremendous amount of influence on Dutch society, also stated that couples should marry before both the church AND the state:

"The Protestant pastor and theologian of Geneva John Calvin decreed that, in order for a couple to be considered married, they must be registered by the state in addition to a church ceremony.
In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage. Religious ceremonies could still be performed, but only for couples who had already been married in a civil ceremony. Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France only civil marriage has legal validity. A religious ceremony may be performed after the civil union, but has no legal effect."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage

Edited 2012-07-09 15:59 UTC

Score: 2

RE[5]: A few thoughts
by OMRebel on Mon 9th Jul 2012 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: A few thoughts"
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

As far as I know, this has always been that way in The Netherlands. In fact, I believe this is common in many European countries, and, like so many other civil things, is probably Napoleonic.

The problem with your concept is that because marriage entitles you to state benefits and rights, it must be performed by the state. We have a very, very clear separation between church and state, so the church performing rites or signing documents that give you state benefits and rights is wholly incompatible with out legal system, government structure, and so on.

UPDATE: Turns out it's indeed Napoleonic, but on top of that, the Protestant leader Calvin (deeply religious!), who has had a tremendous amount of influence on Dutch society, also stated that couples should marry before both the church AND the state:

"The Protestant pastor and theologian of Geneva John Calvin decreed that, in order for a couple to be considered married, they must be registered by the state in addition to a church ceremony.
In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage. Religious ceremonies could still be performed, but only for couples who had already been married in a civil ceremony. Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France only civil marriage has legal validity. A religious ceremony may be performed after the civil union, but has no legal effect."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage


In the US, we have to sign up for, and purchase a marriage license. After the wedding, the pastor (who is licensed by the state) signs the license and it's then filed. If you go to the Justice of the Peace in the US, it's the same process - except it's the Justice of the Peace that signs it, instead of the pastor.

So, the state itself isn't performing the wedding service - that is performed from someone that is licensed by the state to perform it. Anyone here can become licensed to perform marriages. That is clear separation between church and state - to deny someone from being able to perform the marriage would clearly cut over that line as the state would have to bias itself against someone due to their religious beliefs.

Score: 1

RE[6]: A few thoughts
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Jul 2012 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: A few thoughts"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So technically, it's exactly the same here as it is in the US; the state is required. Even if you do a religious wedding, you need the state. This is not much different from the quick legal ceremony at city hall followed by the big ceremonial wedding.

It's all pretty similar, it seems.

Score: 2

RE[7]: A few thoughts
by OMRebel on Mon 9th Jul 2012 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: A few thoughts"
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

So technically, it's exactly the same here as it is in the US; the state is required. Even if you do a religious wedding, you need the state. This is not much different from the quick legal ceremony at city hall followed by the big ceremonial wedding.

It's all pretty similar, it seems.


I think it really is similar, yes. Each state within the US has varying laws that differ somewhat. Here's a page with a pretty decent summary on how the states differ:

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requireme...

I live in Mississippi, and we are one of the handful of states that require a blood test to be performed.

Score: 2

RE: A few thoughts
by dimosd on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:33 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

While I object to gay marriage, I don't have a problem with civil partnership. Civil partnership is simply about getting tax benefits from the state etc., sure, no problem.

Edited 2012-07-08 23:43 UTC

Score: 3

RE: A few thoughts
by kwan_e on Mon 9th Jul 2012 01:39 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

First, I don't believe this is something Google should be getting involved with. They're a technology company, not an advocacy group.


IBM used to be a technology company. They were also the first company to officially adopt an equal opportunity program and made it a condition of doing business in the racist south. They then went on to LGBT policies after the disastrous handling of Lynn Conway.

One of the major forces in dismantling apartheid in South Africa was economic boycotting.

Score: 3

RE: A few thoughts
by OSNevvs on Mon 9th Jul 2012 05:55 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
OSNevvs Member since:
2009-08-20

What they should encourage also is legalize marijuana. Everybody smokes it, and yet it's still illegal. Alcohol or tobacco do much more harm.

Score: 0

RE: A few thoughts
by spiderman on Mon 9th Jul 2012 07:11 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Me think this would not sort the problem out.
In France we have a civil marriage, called 'PACS'. It's a union between 2 people with the same rights as marriage. 2 brothers can be 'pacsed' together. Homosexuals can have the exact same rights as heterosexual. But we also have a civil marriage that is the same thing but with a different name for a man and a woman. Well, guess what? Some homosexuals still complain that they don't have 'marriage'. I know a lot of perfectly sane homosexuals who are just happy to be pacsed. Still there are a lot of annoying idiots that will fight for a word.
At this point, this is no more about freedom. Marriage is the opposite of freedom in the first place anyway. At this point, it is masochism. Some people just want to be discriminated again and when they are not, they will invent something so they can still say they are discriminated against. You find this in many minorities (feminists, skin color, etc). Some people are not discriminated against or not anymore but still complain.

Score: 2

RE[2]: A few thoughts
by ammo42 on Mon 9th Jul 2012 10:11 UTC in reply to "RE: A few thoughts"
ammo42 Member since:
2012-07-09

The law concerning PACS is here, and contradicts you in some points:
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI00000...

1) Two brothers can't be PACSed (article 515-2).
2) PACS can be withdrawn by one party without the consent of the other (article 515-7)

Score: 1

RE[3]: A few thoughts
by spiderman on Mon 9th Jul 2012 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A few thoughts"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I stand corrected. It's not exactly the same thing indeed.
I will amend my opinion about it.
I have to say I still think some people want to be discriminated.
I also want to say that a homosexual couple is not the same as an heterosexual couple, as a matter of fact. For one thing, they cannot have natural children. I think it makes sense to have a different kind of contract for a different type of union.

Score: 2

RE: A few thoughts
by dsmogor on Mon 9th Jul 2012 08:18 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I think it very nicely aligns with recent article how MS got involved in politics after DOJ whipped their a*es couple of years ago. Google again innovative here, getting a tech. neutral political mindshare that may benefit them in the future when not that tech neutral voting is in place (IP reform anyone?).

Score: 1

RE: A few thoughts
by renox on Mon 9th Jul 2012 15:08 UTC in reply to "A few thoughts"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Marriage, by definition, is a religious observance
This is not true anymore, now this is an overloaded term which can mean either religious marriage or civil marriage..

I agree with you, that this overloading shouldn't have happened, but it happened, do not pretend the opposite..

Not that it is a big issue, always prepend marriage with civil or religious and rational people shouldn't have issues, well of course religious people are not very rational, so..

Score: 2

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sun 8th Jul 2012 19:11 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

Now, I don't get the whole thing. I don't see literally *any* connection between tech and people of the same sexual orientation other than the fact, that they can be workers at Google or other tech company.
I don't think it's needed, actually.
Sexual orientation is a private thing. People don't have to go to streets and shout out "I'm gay", just as they don't go to streets to shout "I'm heterosexual!".
To me parades and this whole scream is unnecessary noise. I understand that some people are just not tolerant, but you can't change them this way. They won't believe you are normal [just like them] if you're gonna dress like a crazy man shouting some rediculous things unrelated to the whole problem od the actual discrimination.

Now, don't get me wrong: I have absolutely nothing against lesbians, gays, transsexuals, transvestites and other walks of life. I just like sane, reasonable discussion, logic and general sense, not a scream, fights, parades, beatings, etc.
World would be a beautiful place if people could only hold their shit close to their hearts, not their face.
You're muslim? catholic? gay? lesbian? hetero? AWESOME! I wish you best life you can possibly get being yourself. But please, let me live in peace in harmony with others by not making me distracted with your pointless over-expression of uncumbered mind. Speak out your problems, your strenghts, but do it like a civilized human being. It touches both "sides" of the "problem".

Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by ssokolow on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:23 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Now, I don't get the whole thing. I don't see literally *any* connection between tech and people of the same sexual orientation other than the fact, that they can be workers at Google or other tech company.


That IS the connection. Studies have shown that, the more tolerant a tech company is of LGBT individuals, the easier it is for them to get lots of skilled workers.

(Even the "ordinary" ones who generally feel more comfortable in a tolerant environment. I guess there's some kind of correlation between being a highly-skilled tech worker and having a liberal mindset.)

At the beginning of this year, Microsoft beat Google to this sort of thing by joining Vulcan, NIKE, RealNetworks, Group Health Cooperative, and Concur in backing bills to legalize gay marriage in Washington state.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/microsoft-cal...

This is just Google one-upping Microsoft on that front... probably in the hopes of not looking less inviting than Microsoft to new employees.

Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by twitterfire on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


At the beginning of this year, Microsoft beat Google to this sort of thing by joining Vulcan, NIKE, RealNetworks, Group Health Cooperative, and Concur in backing bills to legalize gay marriage in Washington state.


They are just (stupidly) following a trend. I doubt that Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates has the same personal opinions as Microsoft's "official" opinion.

If it will be trendy and fashionable to promote pink flying pigs MS will promote pink flying pigs. And so will Apple and others. Corporations are full of hypocrites - at least in the PR departments.

Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by n4cer on Sun 8th Jul 2012 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06


They are just (stupidly) following a trend. I doubt that Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates has the same personal opinions as Microsoft's "official" opinion.

If it will be trendy and fashionable to promote pink flying pigs MS will promote pink flying pigs. And so will Apple and others. Corporations are full of hypocrites - at least in the PR departments.


If they didn't personally agree, they wouldn't have each made personal donations.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2018582581_ball...

Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by JAlexoid on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

As much as I dislike Microsoft, they do value their employees. And their positions and sponsorships are reflecting their support for their own loyal employees.

Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by Anonymous Penguin on Mon 9th Jul 2012 00:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06



You're muslim? catholic? gay? lesbian? hetero? AWESOME! I wish you best life you can possibly get being yourself.


That could be true if nowhere in the world you'd be discriminated for being one the above. People get killed for being Christian (and of course for being gay, see Iran), discriminated for being catholic (China), or Muslim (in many Western country). So it is not that easy.
I understand that you couldn't care less and you want to be left alone, but that is another matter.

Score: 1

RE: Comment by marcp
by Radio on Mon 9th Jul 2012 04:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20
Censorship??
by Morgan on Sun 8th Jul 2012 19:48 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

Is it me, or is there some pretty heavy handed censorship going on here? I posted a reply to a very bigoted and negative "gay marriage isn't marriage" comment. Now both comments are missing, along with a few others that were on both sides of the issue.

Thom, if you're going to post a hot topic like this and then delete entire threads while leaving similar discussions intact, what's the point of even putting the story up?

For the record, I'm 100% in support of what Google is doing, and my deleted comment had no foul language, no extremist views, no name calling or trolling or other crap. The gist of what I said was "I'll be glad when this initiative comes to the States". It bothers me not just that my comment was deleted, but that two others that highly disagreed with me were too.

If this is no longer an open discussion forum, if you're going to start randomly deleting posts that are not offensive, or even ones that are but are dealt with by the other commenters, you may as well just delete my account along with it.

I'm truly disgusted with you right now, Thom.

Score: 5

RE: Censorship??
by MOS6510 on Sun 8th Jul 2012 19:54 UTC in reply to "Censorship??"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It could be a bug. It says there are X comments, but if you count them it's far less.

Score: 2

RE[2]: Censorship??
by Morgan on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Censorship??"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

But why is it only affecting this one, highly controversial story? I hate to rush to judgement but of all the stories posted in the past few years, this has to be the most controversial by far.

And, it's not the first time this has happened. I don't remember the topic but there was a story with an entire thread deleted by Thom a while back; he came in and explained why he deleted it. I hope that if that is what is going on here, he will own up to it.

Score: 2

RE[3]: Censorship??
by MOS6510 on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Censorship??"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Seems we have traded placeS, now your attacking Thom and I'm defending him. :-p

But it is strange that the "bug" only happens here. It does seem like human intervention, but let's wait what the Dutch One says.

Score: 2

RE[4]: Censorship??
by Morgan on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Censorship??"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Not attacking, just disgusted right now. But I'll try to keep a "wait and see" mindset about it.

Score: 2

RE[5]: Censorship??
by twitterfire on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Censorship??"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Not attacking, just disgusted right now. But I'll try to keep a "wait and see" mindset about it.

Well, it is Thom's blog. So if he likes to censor, is his right and so be it. If he likes to alienate the members, so be it.

A more mature way to act would be to let user mod the comments by voting the comments up or down. That was one of the roles of the voting system.

However this is only a small place and there are many IT news sites and blogs.

Score: 2

RE: Censorship??
by twitterfire on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:05 UTC in reply to "Censorship??"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I'm truly disgusted with you right now, Thom.

It more like saddened me that this happened (again) on OSnews.

Score: 2

RE[2]: Censorship??
by Morgan on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Censorship??"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You know, it's obvious from the deleted thread we both posted in earlier that you and I are on different sides of the fence regarding the article subject. But we otherwise get along and I think it sucks we aren't given the opportunity to have a rational, adult discussion about it.

Score: 2

RE: Censorship??
by gumoz on Mon 9th Jul 2012 21:25 UTC in reply to "Censorship??"
gumoz Member since:
2008-05-15

It's Tom, his point of view should always be the correct one. (It's what I've learned from 4 years reading OSNews).

Score: 1

The "old" new thing
by dimosd on Sun 8th Jul 2012 19:49 UTC
dimosd
Member since:
2006-02-10

People were so much more open minded regarding sexual practices 2500 years ago, stepping back to that time is definetely a sign of progress. Sigh...

Score: 1

RE: The "old" new thing
by JAlexoid on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:40 UTC in reply to "The "old" new thing"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No they weren't. They just "valued freedom" far more.

Score: 2

RE[2]: The "old" new thing
by dimosd on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE: The "old" new thing"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

You missed the irony. People at the time were raised to believe that bisexuality (for both men and women), slavery and men being superior to women were nature's law and perfectly ethical.
Which proves that being pro-gay has nothing to do with civil rights and "open-minded-ness"... just follow the herd!

Score: 1

Explanation
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:23 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I just did some relatively heavy-handed moderation - something I don't like, but alas. Discrimination based on skin colour, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. is not allowed on OSNews. Advocacy in favour of denying basic civil rights just because of someone's sexual orientation, skin colour, etc. falls under discrimination.

If you visit our site, please respect our rules.

Edited 2012-07-08 20:32 UTC

Score: 2

RE: Explanation
by Morgan on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:30 UTC in reply to "Explanation"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Thank you for explaining. But why delete comments that had zero discrimination? That's what really bothers me.

Score: 2

RE[2]: Explanation
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Explanation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thank you for explaining. But why delete comments that had zero discrimination? That's what really bothers me.


That's why it's heavy-handed moderation. It basically entails removing entire threads with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel. It's not pleasant, but sometimes it has to be done.

Edited 2012-07-08 20:33 UTC

Score: 2

RE[3]: Explanation
by Morgan on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Explanation"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on that. As others have said, you're the editor and it's your prerogative. But I think you've let a lot worse comments slide in the past, leaving us to meta-moderate and generally we do a great job of it when it comes to blatantly offensive material.

My approach would have been to mod the offensive comments down as far as the system allows, leaving the unoffensive and possibly insightful comments intact. That way, a user would have to actively click on a downmodded post to read it.

But again, it's your site not mine. I've said my piece on the modding topic as well as my stance on the article issue (assuming I don't get deleted again) so I'm out of it.

Score: 3

RE[4]: Explanation
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Explanation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on that.


If you're on my side of the screen, you'd understand. I can't leave broken threads, since readers would not be able to make sense of it. It's not an exact science, but alas. Leave all comments, people complain. Remove a few comments, people complain. Use the hatchet, and people complain. There's no right way here.

In any case, just as I would remove "black people shouldn't be allowed to get married to white people", I will remove "gay people are not allowed to get married with other gay people".

I will also not avoid posting a news item just because large parts of the world do not yet have full legal equality for all its citizens. Can't help it us Dutch and several other countries are ahead of the curve there. I refuse to lower my standards or compromise my integrity - if I were to not post this story just because some people would get upset, I would not be able to see some of my friends eye-to-eye.

Edited 2012-07-08 20:51 UTC

Score: 2

RE[5]: Explanation
by twitterfire on Sun 8th Jul 2012 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Explanation"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

There's no right way here.

There is. Letting users to mod by voting down comments if they don't like and/or agree with them.


Can't help it us Dutch and several other countries are ahead of the curve there.

That might be the case but said curve is Gauss curve.


I refuse to lower my standards or compromise my integrity - if I were to not post this story just because some people would get upset, I would not be able to see some of my friends eye-to-eye.

The same, the only difference being that I am able to look into my friends eyes and not agreeing with the legalisation of marriage between homosexuals.

Score: 3

RE[6]: Explanation
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Explanation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There is. Letting users to mod by voting down comments if they don't like and/or agree with them.


I wouldn't let users vote on "black people should not be allowed to marry white people" either - I would remove a comment like that immediately. This is non-negotiable. If you do not want to visit a site that removes discriminating comments, you should not visit OSNews. As simple as that. I'm now closing the discussion on moderation. Keep that in mind.

Score: 1

RE[7]: Explanation
by Soulbender on Mon 9th Jul 2012 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Explanation"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I wouldn't let users vote on "black people should not be allowed to marry white people" either


Dude, do you really not understand what the moderation is? We are not voting on if X should be allowed to marry Y, we're voting on if the comment has merit and is worthy of discussion.

Score: 2

RE[6]: Explanation
by Soulbender on Mon 9th Jul 2012 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Explanation"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There is. Letting users to mod by voting down comments if they don't like and/or agree with them.


Yeah but we aren't, really. As soon as you have posted you are no longer trusted with the responsibility to mod because, you know, we are not adults.
I guess it's like what they say: you know others as you know yourself.

Score: 2

RE[5]: Explanation
by dimosd on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Explanation"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

if I were to not post this story just because some people would get upset, I would not be able to see some of my friends eye-to-eye.


So basically, it's about keeping your gay friends happy...
I've met people who were gay, educated and more or less ok, and I've met other people (50yos in public toilets trying to pick up young boys; MDMA-crazed, nearly-psychotic bisexuals acting in very embarassing ways) who were most definetely simply perverts.
Please don't be so self-righteous, your "goal" isn't as "noble" and self-evident as you would like it to be.

I dare you not to censor this message...

Score: 0

RE[6]: Explanation
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Explanation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So basically, it's about keeping your gay friends happy...


No, it's about a prominent technology company standing up for basic civil rights. When I saw this story, I immediately labelled it as posting-material - only to realise 10 seconds later that people who discriminate might be offended by it. And 0.000000000000001 seconds after that I realised that not posting something because I might offend people who discriminate is weak, pathetic, and gutless.

This is a great, important, and much-needed initiative. The fact that a publicly traded company does so is all the more important. Hopefully, Apple and Microsoft - who have made smaller gestures to this effect as well - will join this effort and also fight for basic civil rights, whether some people want to deny their fellow citizens basic civil rights or no.

Score: 2

RE[7]: Explanation
by JAlexoid on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Explanation"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Microsoft - who have made smaller gestures to this effect as well


You might have guessed that I'm not a Microsoft supporter, but you are wrong there. Microsoft does quite a lot with the LGBTQ organisations.

Score: 2

RE[7]: Explanation
by pepa on Mon 9th Jul 2012 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Explanation"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

Don't you see that you are discriminating?? If people are of the opinion that same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed, are they no longer allowed to express that opinion?

We would all be much better off to prioritize Tolerance as a value. You are not only intolerant, you are deleting posts of people that express an opinion you don't agree with, while you're not deleting posts of people you do agree with. That is discrimination.

Score: 1

RE[6]: Explanation
by JAlexoid on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Explanation"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And I've "met" heterosexuals that are paedophiles, rapists and perverts. Do you have a point, beyond singling out gays?

PS: The one's that are demanding equal rights are not the perverted ones. The perverted ones are too busy preaching in your local Catholic church on Sundays*



*-To all righteous Catholics - Please excuse my extreme exaggeration.

Score: 4

RE[7]: Explanation
by dimosd on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Explanation"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

I am an atheist, but you happen to bring up an interesting point: that a pro-gay attitude currently happens to mostly affect ex-protestant countries compared to countries with other religious/political belief systems.
These countries try to enforce their current beliefs to other countries as "self-evident" (what's new?)

Thanks for providing food for thought.

Score: 2

RE[7]: Explanation
by Soulbender on Mon 9th Jul 2012 10:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Explanation"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The perverted ones are too busy preaching in your local Catholic church on Sundays*


I didn't know that Jerry Falwell was a catholic.

Score: 2

RE: Explanation
by twitterfire on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:30 UTC in reply to "Explanation"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Advocacy in favour of denying basic human rights just because of someone's sexual orientation, skin colour, etc. falls under discrimination.

FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

If you read the deleted posts carefully you'll see that I didn't discriminate. Not agreeing with something equals discrimination?

On the other hand, discriminating against majority, positive discrimination and affirmative action and political correctness are positive values and hence ok?

As of now I feel discriminated by this "news" bit and by some of the comments as an normal, average guy. Or being a member of majority is a guilt and I am to be punished for this?

Score: 1

RE[2]: Explanation
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Explanation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That should've been civil rights, fixed it.

Score: 1

RE: Explanation
by dimosd on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:49 UTC in reply to "Explanation"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

I just did some relatively heavy-handed moderation - something I don't like, but alas. Discrimination based on skin colour, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. is not allowed on OSNews. Advocacy in favour of denying basic civil rights just because of someone's sexual orientation, skin colour, etc. falls under discrimination.

If you visit our site, please respect our rules.


From what I've seen from other sites, once the moderator posts a pro-gay story, all opposing comments will be moderated unless they are deemed sufficiently harmless.

I have to admit that open minded Dutch people are surprisingly tolerant to other similar "open minded" Dutch people.

Score: 1

politics all the way
by v_bobok on Sun 8th Jul 2012 20:50 UTC
v_bobok
Member since:
2008-08-01

Oh boy here we go. What a fantastic initiative. Bravo, Google, bravo!

Score: 1

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 8th Jul 2012 21:28 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

It's weird for Google to get involved in this subject altogether.

Score: 2

Click bait
by spiderman on Sun 8th Jul 2012 21:31 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

Me think what they want to achieve is get more clicks.

Score: 2

Comment by aligatro
by aligatro on Sun 8th Jul 2012 21:39 UTC
aligatro
Member since:
2010-01-28

What does this have to do with "OS"? The only connection to technology here is the fact that google is related to technology. In my opinion, this news doesn't belong on this website.

Score: 1

Err
by twitterfire on Sun 8th Jul 2012 22:02 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Time to show Bing some love. ;)

Score: 2

Another step towards equality....
by Fusion on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:14 UTC
Fusion
Member since:
2005-07-18

This is not merely a political maneuver; supporting civil rights makes EXCELLENT BUSINESS SENSE for Google. Inclusive work environments (not just by company policy but state law) naturally attract the greatest pools of talent. A prospective employee is likely to opt for residing and working wherever their family unit will be best protected.

>>>>"Sexual orientation is a private thing. People don't have to go to streets and shout out "I'm gay", just as they don't go to streets to shout "I'm heterosexual!". To me parades and this whole scream is unnecessary noise. I understand that some people are just not tolerant, but you can't change them this way. They won't believe you are normal [just like them] if you're gonna dress like a crazy man shouting some rediculous things unrelated to the whole problem od the actual discrimination."<<<<

First, sexual orientation is not a private thing. Try telling that to the suicidal high school boy who gets shoved into his locker, beaten, and threatened daily merely because he is *perceived* to be gay. People don't go out into the streets and shout "I'm heterosexual" because that is always assumed by and for the majority of persons. Minorities (e.g., PR, African, Chicano, LGBT, etc.), on the other hand, have loud conspicuous pride festivals to raise and SUSTAIN awareness... sending a collective message that they "won't be ashamed" and celebrating an aspect of their identity. Visibility of these festivals help support youths who happen to be growing up in less hospitable climates.... they also help younger generations internalize acceptance and thus actually do address the core of descrimination.

As for wanting others to believe you're "normal," the 1950s Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis tried the "we're just like you" approach. The problem is, de-emphasizing your points of difference only helps substantiate those traits inferiority and disfavor. We're all different, and being different *IS* normal... we as a people need to celebrate our differences, and stop listening to rhetoric and bigotry disguised as faith. Hats off to Google for giving their collective support to a worthy cause!

Score: 2

The word marriage...
by Fusion on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:27 UTC
Fusion
Member since:
2005-07-18

The psychological value of the term "Marriage" transcends religion; we've adopted its value as a society. Consider these gems from Judge Reinhardt's (9th circuit) ruling that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage... they're witty and really help put the term into perspective:

1. "[M]arriage is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name 'registered domestic partnership' does not."

2. "We are regularly given forms to complete that ask us whether we are 'single' or 'married.' Newspapers run announcements of births, deaths, and marriages. We are excited to see someone ask, 'Will you marry me?', whether on bended knee in a restaurant or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see 'Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?'. Groucho Marx's one-liner, 'Marriage is a wonderful institution...but who wants to live in an institution?' would lack its punch if the word 'marriage' were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare's 'A young man married a man that's marr'd,' Lincoln's 'Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory,' and Sinatra's 'A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's too late.'"

3. "Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie."

4. "In order to explain how rescinding access to the designation of 'marriage' is rationally related to the State's interest in responsible procreation, Proponents would have had to argue that opposite-sex couples were more likely to procreate accidentally or irresponsibly when same-sex couples were allowed access to the designation of 'marriage.' We are aware of no basis on which this argument would even be conceivably plausible."

5. "There is a limited sense in which the extension of the designation 'marriage' to same-sex partnerships might alter the content of the lessons that schools choose to teach. Schools teach about the world as it is; when the world changes, lessons change. A shift in the State's marriage law may therefore affect the content of classroom instruction just as would the election of a new governor, the discovery of a new chemical element, or the adoption of a new law permitting no-fault divorce: students learn about these as empirical facts of the world around them. But to protest the teaching of these facts is little different from protesting their very existence; it is like opposing the election of a particular governor on the ground that students would learn about his holding office."

Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Sun 8th Jul 2012 23:31 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Is all about pushing Obama, Google supports Obama, Obama suports gay marriage, so do the math.

Obama push for gay marriage was well, a dumb strategy that is costing him votes, Google just want to revert that.

Edited 2012-07-08 23:35 UTC

Score: 2

RE: ...
by tomcat on Mon 9th Jul 2012 07:31 UTC in reply to "..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I support gay marriage; primarily because I have a family member who is gay and has been in a loving monogamous relationship for 20 years, and, ultimately, I think it's inevitable that gay marriage will become a basic civil right. But, that said, it does strike me as odd that Google, which has a senior tech advisor in the White House, is suddenly interested in this issue. Why now? Is it about somehow shoring up Obama? Perhaps. This Administration has shown that it will go to any length to retain power; but even if that's not the case, Google is late to the party (Microsoft and Apple have been supporting this cause for YEARS). I think they may be realizing that having a public policy of openness is good for hiring and retention.

Score: 2

curio
Member since:
2010-05-03

"Lovely", now only the single and asexual will be discriminated against!

One would think that rational, well educated and technically savvy individuals such as frequent this site, would be able to drill down to the real core issues in this debate. Apparently not as is evidenced by the bulk of the knee jerk/parroting commentary's.

THE ISSUES:

1)The core issues cited by gay marriage advocates have nothing specifically to do with sexual orientation, but does have all to do with being single and or asexual. The disparities between married men and women vs. single people.

a) What? Single and or asexual people don't have the same need for some kind of assignable next of kin so that their dearest friend can visit them in a hospital or to take care of their affairs while they're in there etc..?

b)What? Singles and asexuals don't ever need to combine their resources to buy real property together?

c)What? Two singles and or asexuals can't adopt a child in common to provide an otherwise orphaned child a good and stable home?

d)What? Life long singles and asexuals who've cohabited and cared for each other shouldn't have the the same survivorship benefits as all other people of whatever/any sexual orientation?

e)What? When all is said and done are singles and asexuals going to have to declare themselves to be gay in order to get justice? That will surely skew any statistical data.

2)Other than their desire for governments to legitimize their personal lifestyle choices, which isn't the government's job, gays and lesbians have no unique legal issues that can't be applied to all heterosexuals, singles and or asexuals generally. Therefore, you see, that attaching sexual orientation to these arguments is selfish and self serving. Everyone should have these same rights, and a means should be devised to do it fairly and properly.

DISCUSSION:

1)From the governments standpoint, all unions or instances of lifelong/long term cohabitation, regardless of sexual orientation, should be no more than civil union contracts entered into willfully.

a)Leave the word marriage to the millennium's old one male-one female unions. To do otherwise interjects consternation into an otherwise rational, reasoned argument (see 2 above).

b)Essentially, within some broad and reasonable limits (let's keep it in the species, leaving the sheep and horses in the barns), what are now marriage prenuptial agreements should in and of themselves be the entirety of the civil union contract. (I personally would love to see this if for no other reason than to see what kind of outrageous civil union contracts the various and sundry religion's/church hierarchy's would come up with for their followers).

c)Benefits for surviving spouses needs to be readdressed. Here in the u.s.a. the social security system was instituted at a time when most women didn't need to work outside the home. Instead, raising their children to be decent citizens within their own family's belief systems. At that time, without these benefits blue collar worker's wives would be left destitute.
Means testing (not giving handout's to people who don't need it) would be the simplest solution but not the only one that is viable (brevity prevents me delving deeper).

FURTHER:

I personally could give less than a speck on a gnat's anus what consenting adult do to get their sexual yummy's (leave the children alone). I do care however, when real core issues such as these are sidelined and obfuscated by politically correct hyperbole and rhetoric that leaves the broader issues, involving justice for everyone undressed .

FINALLY:

Too, it's likely that this kind of controversial advocacy falls far afield of Google's corporate charter, and that some of their stockholders will probably sue over it.

Score: 2

dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

*This* is a comment worth of a technical (ahem) site like Osnews. Too bad Osnews discriminates against my ability to vote for you.

Score: 1

pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

Hear, hear!

Score: 2

Humm ...
by medgar1976 on Mon 9th Jul 2012 01:07 UTC
medgar1976
Member since:
2012-07-04

Though I think it is important for individuals to be involved in social issues, I don't think businesses should be pushing a social agenda. Google should be concentrating its energy on making a better Android OS, improving internet searching and web apps, and be pushing the boundaries of cloud computing. Leave the social agenda to individuals, politicians, and social activists. I don't think it is Google's responsibility to make the world any type of utopia or its opposite. How does this issue in any way help google expand its markets, improve its products, or services? It doesn't. It is like reporting that a basketball team is on a mission to push for space travel to the moon by 2020. They have no real logical connection. It is crazy what makes for news these days.

Score: 1

Legitimizing Obama's Position
by backdoc on Mon 9th Jul 2012 02:15 UTC
backdoc
Member since:
2006-01-14

This a political move to support Obama. Plain and Simple. I have a problem with both, Obama for this position (as well as most everything else he stands for [ hidden agendas] ) and now Google for not only their position, but their insidious attempt to get the worst president that the United States has ever had re-elected.

Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Google for not only their position, but their insidious attempt to get the worst president that the United States has ever had re-elected.


I believed that was George W. Bush? Or what would you call a criminal who starts a bloody war for no reason whatsoever (I mean Iran, of course, but I have my doubts about Afghanistan as well).

Score: 2

Core business
by dmrio on Mon 9th Jul 2012 02:51 UTC
dmrio
Member since:
2005-08-26

I believe Android marriage is better suited for OSNews.

Score: 4

Go Google go
by AlekosPanagulis on Mon 9th Jul 2012 05:45 UTC
AlekosPanagulis
Member since:
2012-03-19

I live in the most homofobic country of modern Europe (Italy). The law is hostile to gays and to non-marries heterosexuals. Google should start from here.

Score: 1

plase not spread shit about my country
by MichalKJP on Mon 9th Jul 2012 07:07 UTC
MichalKJP
Member since:
2012-07-09

"The 'Legalize Love' campaign officially launches in Poland (..) will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist"

My culture is not homophobic. We don't have any anti-gay law.

You have no clue about my country, so please shut the fuck up.

Score: 0

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I don't know what's with that all "homophobic Poland" black PR s*t in recent years. Seems like it's an easy target for all gay organization to point a finger on, because overall weak international position.
Funny it all started with misguided president of my city blocking equality march 7 years ago. All really happened *once*. 3rd most important (voted) party in the parliament has a vocal gay activist as a vice president. Google could start their fight with prejudice without showing it in the first place.

Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

My culture is not homophobic. We don't have any anti-gay law.


I think the stance here is basically "if it's not Holland it's homophobic"

Score: 2

What's a shame...
by piotr.dobrogost on Mon 9th Jul 2012 08:30 UTC
piotr.dobrogost
Member since:
2011-10-04

What's a shame...

Score: 0

political Google.
by hankin on Mon 9th Jul 2012 13:06 UTC
hankin
Member since:
2012-07-09

Yes, I heard about this. Google are becoming quite politically active. No doubt they will become even more so.

Score: 1

RE: political Google.
by pepa on Mon 9th Jul 2012 19:55 UTC in reply to "political Google."
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

Yes, very scary stuff...

Score: 2

adinas
Member since:
2005-08-17

Where, you know, they hang gays in the public square (literally).

Score: 1

Comment by zima
by zima on Sun 15th Jul 2012 23:26 UTC in reply to "Let's see them do this in countries like Iran"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, some gov that you largely cherish essentially forbids Google from doing much of any business in Iran...

(and you do have some fixation / one track mind; worse injustices in some other places don't nullify issues in Poland and, presumably, Singapore)

Edited 2012-07-15 23:33 UTC

Score: 2