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.
Permalink for comment 525902
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"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.


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.


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).


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 .


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.

Reply Score: 2