Google Champions LGBT Rights in Homophobic Nations with 'Legalize Love' Campaign

90

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

vrmlbasic

Frustratingly your argument here could be used as a template for advocacy of other illegal activities. Swap out all references to "gay" and replace them with "pedophile" or "polygamist" and with a few other "cosmetic" changes it is just as valid :(

This sort of vague argument is the stuff that sends us careening down slippery slopes :( :(

Additionally, you're using your morals ("...it is still wrong...") to justify your position. I don't see what makes your argument, "justified" by your own morals, any different than the arguments of your opposition which they "justify" with their own morals. Arguments based solely on the conflicting moralities of the arguers do not negate each other.

avatar

unaligned

@phaseone
The argument of a pedophile marrying a child is MUCH different than two consensual adults in a relationship regardless of their gender. If you don't see how different of a situation that is, you're clearly misguided.

Rights are rights regardless of whether they are declared as such. And in the case where they are not, they must be fought for. Your pathetic attempts to liken gay rights to harmful or exploitative behavior are disgusting.

@vrmlbasic
'Frustratingly your argument here could be used as a template for advocacy of other illegal activities'

Actually, no, it really can't. What are the reasons incest is illegal? Possible birth defects - some would argue it is not fair to bring a child into the world with a large possibility of them being mentally or physically retarded. What are the reasons that pedophilia is illegal? That one is self explanatory - it is the exploitation of children who cannot defend themselves. Enough said. What are the reasons polygamy is illegal? Is there any reason the government should have any say in whether one man wants to marry four women, and all five of them consent to it? Give me a decent argument as to why it's the government's business and I may be persuaded, but as of right now I see no good reason the gov't should be involved in this. Consider me libertarian.

But NONE of these issues extend to gay rights. It is simply a relationship between two adults of the same gender - big effing deal. It harms no one. It is no one's business - and it's surely not up to the government to say that they can't get married. It is a terrible hypocrisy that the party that is typically anti-gay, and therefore anti gay marriage (the republicans) espouse small government in that it shouldn't meddle in the lives of people. But as soon as you start talking about something that their church has condemned, they will throw that sentiment out the window and use their bigoted religious values as a MORAL justification to tell people how to live their lives. This is an absolute travesty.

'Additionally, you're using your morals ("...it is still wrong...") to justify your position.'

I said nothing about morality regarding gays, because it is not a moral issue. I said it is wrong to deprive people of human rights - which is what is happening to gays. Was it wrong to deprive blacks freedom? Was it wrong to deny women the right to vote? If the answer to those questions is yes (which it clearly is), then it is wrong to deny gays the rights to practice their life as they will, provided they're playing by the same rules as everyone else (not committing statutory rape, being a pedo, etc).

If anything, it's YOU who is justifying a position of morality making the claim that gays don't deserve the same rights to marry who they want simply because you don't approve of it. There are no slippery slopes here. That's a politicians phrase to convince simpletons such as yourself.

avatar

phaseone

Actually they are not different at all and I think its interesting you didn't touch the other reference I made regarding family members. That shows how out of touch with the facts you are. We all have the same rights I am not sure why you keep fighting the obvious, this is not a question of not having equal rights its only about one side wanting special rights.

avatar

unaligned

Did you read the entire post? Apparently not. I quote:

'What are the reasons incest is illegal? Possible birth defects - some would argue it is not fair to bring a child into the world with a large possibility of them being mentally or physically retarded.'

Pretty sure that's talking about family members. Another reason is the increased possibility for siblings or the like to take advantage of a weaker (or possibly disabled) member of their family. Or the ability of parents to abuse their children. The proof that these are the reasons is that the government allows marriage to cousins, where these risks are much lower - or where it has determined that they aren't great enough to warrant government intervention.

It's still pathetic that you've likened gay to pedo and the selfish irresponsibility (on several levels) of being in a relationship with your immediate family. That alone says so much about your bigoted beliefs.

As to your blatantly idiotic claim that one group wants 'special rights', gays simply want to be able to enter a relationship that is legally recognized by the government with someone of their own sex. Do they have that right? They sure don't.

It's apparent that you're fooling yourself, attempting to convince people of a ridiculous notion by claiming that because everyone has the 'same' rights on paper, that it's therefore fair (and justifiable) that we deny people the ability to do something they should be allowed to do by saying that everyone has the 'same' rights. You're stretching, looking for a non-religious argument because you know the second you call them immoral (which I'm guessing you believe), you've outed yourself as a religious nut.

But instead you've outed yourself as an idiot. And everyone can see through you.

avatar

phaseone

Are you really that dumb? I use that word not in anger or hostile towards you. But the gay and lesbian charade run into your same dilemma if you bring children into the discussion as they cannot have any together. The only option left for them is the same as any other "adoption". See how all your reasons are also smoke screens?

avatar

unaligned

Ah, I was waiting for that response. There have been studies performed that show that children brought up in loving gay homes are no worse than in a stright family. You think think that straight people don't f*ck up their kids? The world is full of kids completely disillusioned, abused, etc. of straight parents.

Next argument please.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not gay. I just fight against the wrongs that people have, and continue to, commit against other people in the name of fear, differences, or whatever other reason they come up with.

avatar

phaseone

You are here again completely evading the questions of this discussion. You keep moving from one non argument to another all the while thinking you have made a point. There is no abuse or removal of rights here at all for a gay person, everyone including a gay person has the same rights.

avatar

unaligned

You brought up adoption as a potential issue facing gays, and one which should be considered as a reason they should not have the right to marry each other. I simply responded to it. How is that evasion?

And you're back to your 'same' old tricks. Tell me, if straight people have the right to marry who they want, can you honestly sit there and say that gays have the right to marry who they want? Clearly, the answer is NO. It is disallowed by government on the basis of prejudice, hate, and discrimination by a majority of people voting with their religion. Period. End of story. It is a perfect antithesis of the principles laid forth in our constitution. But that has been violated since the day after it was written, so who is truly surprised by that?

A clear violation of human rights, not allowing gays to marry is the typical example of a group of people being attacked because the majority doesn't 'approve' of something which does not affect them, does not harm them, scares them, and which is therefore outlawed with no basis otherwise.

This conversation is going nowhere, as you are woefully committed to your 'same' rights argument even though it is absolute rubbish. Was that something your pastor said that you just took as gospel without using critical analysis to dissect?

avatar

Valor958

I love how when ignorant folks like 'Atomike' post drivel and attempt to insult the author... authors on here actually TALK with us too. Kudos to Paul for getting this on here, and again for taking down 'Atomike'after his senseless attempt at an insult. This is why I make MPC part of my daily browsing pattern.

On topic though, I applaude Google for actually sticking to a cause that has meaning to many people. I've had friends, relatives, co-workers, and other people I've known who are gay. Not a single one of them is deserving of the derision or fear that comes with simply loving someone who happens to be the same sex. It's just silly to try to ruin these peoples lives simply because YOU don't agree. If you believe they'll burn or otherwise be punished, let your God or belieft system be the judge and stay out of it.
I'm also glad that Google decided to keep itself out of courts and other public ire by supporting gay marriage legalization. Google is much better off by trying to change people's hearts then jump straight to the laws. If enough people are moved to stop the senseless hate, the laws will soon follow suit.
I've yet to try the Google OS or Android, but I gladly say that Google is my go to search engine and browser, and will remain so. As soon as the Google Glasses are affordable, and released, I'll be enjoying those as well at some point.
Google, thank you.

avatar

diablogun

Ahh, now we go back to the gay rights supporters, who only see the world through the lens of "oppression".
When are you going to get that people could care less about the vile things you do, they just would rather not redefine the family unit to accomodate your sickness?

avatar

PsychNerd

Actually in the eyes of psychology, 99.7% of psychologist and psychiatrists agree that homosexuality is not a sickness. They believe it is a natural evolutionary leap for population control.

The majority of psychologist and psychiatrists also believe homophobia is a disorder.

avatar

Valor958

So you assume anyone in support of equal treatment, across the board, for LGBT people must in turn be gay? I am happily married with 2 children, and am not gay.
I see the world through many different 'lenses', and oppression seems to be the current flavor fitting to the treatment across the world, USA included, regarding LGBT. People, apparently like yourself, constitute anything they don't agree with our their particular flavor of religious text does not agree with to be 'vile' and 'sick'.
Since when did loving another person make you a 'vile' and 'sick' person? You would be a prime example of one of the flock streaming to an evangelical church to scream your priase towards a faith that supports damnation of anyone not of their creed.
Sure you aren't a radical Islam?

avatar

diablogun

I could care less if you are LGBT or not, though you certainly sound like a gay radical.
You can call the rampant promiscuity and early mortality in the gay community "love" all you want, but that does not change its disgusting nature...

Now back to your swap party...

avatar

Carlidan

And also I'm not gay. And I do have sick dreams of having sex with more than one girl at a time. Lesbians!

avatar

diablogun

LOL, sure you do!

avatar

Carlidan

Just FYI diblogun... in nature, there are animals who have sex with the same sex. So your point is mute.

And also I think you having sex with your partner is vile and sick, so please to having sex and PLEASE don't reproduce either. That to me is sick and vile. :)

avatar

diablogun

Unfortunately, there are quite a few animals in humanity that have sex with the same gender as well...

avatar

Atomike

Homophobic is not the correct word.
Homophobic means fear of the same.
People opposed to homosexual acts do not fear them, they oppose them for reasons that almost always have nothing to do with fear.

Using words like this make you look like a brain-ophobe.
I wish journalism was taught properly. This is amateur hour.

avatar

PCLinuxguy

Wow Atomike, you really are a moron. If you don't like homosexuals or the site then unregister and go the hell away.

avatar

Paul_Lilly

Actually, Merriam-Webster (a decidedly non-amateur source of word definitions) defines homophobia as the "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

Merriam-Webster also defines homphobia for kids, saying it's the "irrational fear or dislike of or prejudice against homosexuality or homosexuals."

I've gone ahead and bolded the parts you may wish to study before further attempting to 'correct' others on the appropriate use of the term. No thanks are necessary, I was happy to do it.

avatar

Atomike

Paul, the term "homophobic" was created as a political tool, not as an actual description of a real position. Anyone who has studied history knows this happens all the time (although usually not this blatantly biased).
Homophobic literally means fear of the same. Phobic from Phobos (greek) means fear. Look to the root of the words. Unless you simply WANT to be political, there is NO reason as a journalist to use the word "homophobic". None. I actually HAVE a journalism degree. They taught us things like this. I wish you would have the journalistic integrity to know these things. It's insulting to those of us who have studied and respect journalism.

avatar

Raswan

Hahahahahhaha. Rich. Well, atomike, as one who has seen fit to grace us with your presence and share the extensive knowledge you have about history, etymology, and journalism, then surely you know that words change in meaning all of the time. Literal usage has absolutely nothing to do with colloquial usage.

Still, that doesn't matter worth a shit here, as you also know since you are the smartest man who ever lived, since ANY TIME you talk about individual rights your are talking about POLITICS. Journalism and politics, or politics and anything, for that matter, are rarely as mutually exclusive as you would apparently like them to be.

I actually HAVE a Masters in English, and am almost DONE with a PhD in American history, and--just to make it absolutely clear to people who might find themselves even slightly leaning toward your smarmy, naive, undeservedly self-assured "point of view"--you have no idea what you are talking about. You demonstrate no sense of history or context, exhibit no evidence of critical thinking, a modicum of self control, a sense of decency, or the knowledge to know when you are in over your head. So just unplug that old dell keyboard stained by food crumbs, nervous sweat, and the disappointment your parents must surely feel, and let the grownups talk. Good boy.

avatar

Valor958

Raswan, you easily just jumped up to my favorite commentors list. It's nice to know there are actually informed and intelligent people outside the MPC staff and /. who browse here.
Half the people are just kids or early 20's folk who think they have the whole world figured out.
He's what we in the know, call a "Troll". Often smelly and unwashed, they bite and anything within sight and frequently can be found in the nether regions of the internet foaming at the mouth. Many have even populated blog and vlogs, or taken to nesting in the comments sections of YouTube.
Please. Don't feed the trolls.

avatar

Raswan

But I can fix him, I promise...

avatar

Surefinger

Raswan, with your almost PhD, thanks for adding nothing to this conversation. You and ‘unaligned’ have a lot in common. You might want to get back to work paying off that tuition… I’ll take fries with that.

avatar

Raswan

Trolls will be trolls.

In any case, surefinger, my MA and PhD, as well as my BA, are completely paid for by fellowships, scholarships, and graduate teaching assistantships. That's what happens when you are someone who takes initiative, works hard, and has some ability to think critically. I know it's hard, but try to refrain from distracting the rest of us from actually having a conversation, if you can.

avatar

Surefinger

My bad Raswan, I called it wrong, you obviously work at the Genius bar, which explains a lot.

avatar

Surefinger

Paul, the way you ‘bolded’ paints a broad stroke, I would think you would look up phobia, which is an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. I take this to mean that you should have bolded ‘irrational’ and I don’t see how that definition doesn’t line up with what ‘Atomike’ said. I disagree with his last two lines of his comment. The article was well written and you did a good job of showing how Google’s new campaign, got misconstrued and isn’t about legalizing gay marriage and it’s about fight real injustices in other countries… until your fourth paragraph where you kind of defeat all that by bring up prop 9. Which, there are many people who evidently vote, who oppose Gay Marriage. That opposition doesn’t make them a homophobe or homophobic.

avatar

Raswan

Also, the Oxford English Dictionary, arguably the last word on what academics and people who, you know, think before they speak, defines homophobia as "Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality." Short, sweet, and to the point.

avatar

dougshell

Never before have i registered at a website JUST so i could explain in finite detail how wrong someone was, but I suppose there is a first time for everything. Although i really wanted to tee off as soon as i read the imbecilic first post, I am glad i waited long enough for Paul to chime in.

Honestly, AtomicMike, not only have you made a fool of yourself, you did it on the first post which is most likely to be seen by all that comment.

Furthermore, you had the audacity to infer that the OP was a poor journalist...

You my friend, are a tool.

avatar

Raswan

Good for them. I large company with a conscience? gasp.

avatar

diablogun

So one has no conscience if they think that perverse acts should not form the basis of new rights?

avatar

unaligned

It's quite clear that you are a religious man.

I think religion is perverse, and therefore believe that it should be eradicated from this planet. But we live in a free country (or what is purported to be, at least) and cannot do this.

The ball is in your court kiddo (and I mean that quite literally - you have the intelligence of a very small child, which is very typical for religious fools). But most likely you won't get my point.

avatar

diablogun

Lol, trying to stretch that minimal intellect to disparage people that don't rejoice in homosexuality?
You will find that freedom in that respect is not limited by your insults, and certainly not by the content of your argument.
Begone, your bathhouse awaits...

avatar

unaligned

Who said anything about rejoicing in homosexuality? Did I say that? Nah, I didn't. You're the lunatic radical here, I'm simply a centrist of the persuasion that I don't care what people do with themselves. You, on the other hand, feel it's necessary to spread your drivel and try to control others. Big difference.

You've come back against an attack on your very transparent lack of intelligence... with an attack on my intelligence. How intelligent. You can try to use pretty words to cover it up, but it's still very apparent.

Do you have a decent response to the true point of my argument yet? No? Good.

It's quite clear you're a troll. Shame on me for feeding the insignificant troll.

avatar

diablogun

LOL, how nice to listen to such enlightened prose. Now please add extra cheese to my order at your pizza delivery job...

avatar

Valor958

Agreed, Diablogun is portraying himself quite easily as one of the radicals out there that has led to worldwide war solely in the name of their particular religion.
He doesn't even use pretty words though, unaligned, he just spouts out faux-intellictual statements covered in hypocracy and insecurity. He obviously has so little to occupy his time or interests at home he has to seek out people to focus his hate on.

avatar

diablogun

You would think one would know how to spell intellectual before you presume to castigate others for not being smart....

Keep up the vitriol Mary...

avatar

Valor958

You can tell someone is pathetic and grasping at straws when the only thing they can come up with is a spelling error in someone else's post. Unfortunately, the browser on this PC doesn't have auto-spell check... and i was typing fast and not caring.
None of this changes the overly hateful and spiritually desolate person you appear to be.

avatar

unaligned

Shhhhh. I was trying to let him down easily.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.