
Google Announces Global Campaign To Legalize Gay Marriage - joeyespo
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12330&MediaType=1&Category=24#
======
mattmaroon
This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google
shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this.
And I say this as someone who has been for gay marriage since before it was
cool. I'm a gay marriage hipster. But this still irks me.

I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate
business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning
lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I
see this as another example of corporate personhood.

Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as
private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced
with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may
seem to me) and being a Google shareholder.

I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching
tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start
pressuring everyone else?

~~~
georgemcbay
Some significant percentage of Google's employees are gay. Helping those
employees achieve equal rights to everyone else improves those employee's
lives not just in the feel good sense but it also makes a lot of practical
things like health insurance benefit sharing much more straight-forward.

By lobbying to improve the lives of its employees, Google is improving Google.
So as another heterosexual gay marriage hipster I disagree with you.

I also disagree with you that Google shareholders opposed to gay marriage
shouldn't be forced to choose. They are just as wrong in their beliefs as
those who supported segregation were or those who were against women's
suffrage were. Marginalizing these people for their ridiculously antiquated
beliefs is fair game, IMO.

~~~
smsm42
Does Google regularly hold campaigns to help other kinds of employees to
improve their lives? E.g., I imagine (random example), Google has a number of
Jewish employees. Does Google engage in public campaign agains antisemitism,
which is a real problem in some countries? Are there public Google campaigns
for other equality issues, such as woman rights, religious minority rights,
dissident rights, etc.?

Frankly, this is the first such campaign I hear about, and if indeed it is the
only one - I tend to view it as cynical marketing exploitation of the
political hot topic of the day rather than genuine attempt to improve lives of
Google employees. However, if I am wrong and Google is regularly engaging in
public political campaigns for the human rights causes and this is just
another example - all power to them. However, it would be interesting to see
the list of such campaigns - anybody knows one?

~~~
altano
> Does Google engage in public campaign agains antisemitism, which is a real
> problem in some countries?

Hmmm, anti-semetism is one thing, but it isn't illegal to be Jewish in
Singapore.

~~~
einhverfr
Why the difference? Jews can't get legally married in Indonesia. Marriage in
Indonesia is effectively limited to Muslims, Catholics, Protestants,
Buddhists, and Hindus. If you are Jewish, or Orthodox Christian, or pagan, or
atheist, tough luck....

Also it may be practically illegal to be Jewish in Saudi Arabia (I don't know
about Sabbateans, which is a sort of weird crypto-Jewish Islamic hybrid that
resulted after some forced conversions).

~~~
Tichy
Who says that they won't run a campaign for that? That line of reasoning seems
really strange to me. How do you ever manage to do anything, if all the time
you think "but why not do x instead"? You have to start with something.

Were they to run a campaign against antisemitism, you would be the first to
cry out "why don't they run a campaign for gay marriage instead".

~~~
einhverfr
Sure, why not. I am sure they could campaign for acceptance for eating
cheeseburgers among the Jews too while they are at it. But that wasn't the
point I was replying to.

Also in Indonesia, allowing same-sex marriage by law but keeping all the other
marriage laws would change... exactly nothing. All marriages in Indonesia are
required to be officiated by clergy of approved religions, and the approved
religions are, iirc, fixed in the Constitution.

------
kazoolist
For a probably-different point of view on this -

I'm a person of faith, who takes his faith seriously, and who's faith teaches
that homosexual conduct is immoral. I think this puts me in a distinct
minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American
population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one
of these faiths).

Given my faith, advocacy like this from Google, Apple, and other prominent
tech companies really put me in a bind.

Their products have become such fixtures in my day to day life that I'm not
sure how to get by without them, but by using their products and providing
these companies with revenue, I feel like I'm contributing to a fund for
someone to publicly proclaim: "You're faith is a sham; your God irrelevant;
and, by the way, we think you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot _".

I wish Apple, Google, etc. would all just focus on making insanely great
products and not jump into the fray of divisive-by-definition social issues.

_ And, no, I'm not a "homophobe" or "bigot". I have friends who are gay; I
don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just
like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc.
I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone
who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is
gay.

~~~
corin_
If your view is that homosexuality is immoral, and you don't want homosexuals
to have the same rights as heterosexuals, then I'm afraid you are homophobic.
You may be the best kind of homophobic, but homophobic none the less.

~~~
swah
If homossexuals had the rights without calling it marriage, I think he (parent
poster) would be all right with it.

~~~
corin_
You can be homophobic without opposing gay marriage (regardless of if you use
"marriage" as the word), just like you can be racist without thinking black
people shouldn't be allowed to get married. It's about attitude, not actions -
the fact that he isn't trying to force his homophobia on others is what makes
him the better kind of homophobe.

~~~
swah
Well, perhaps the word doesn't carry the same negative weight that it does in
portuguese. Here if you tell me someone is an homophobe, I imagine people that
want to beat all homossexuals passing in the streets.

------
creamyhorror
This is a pretty surprising move, at least to me. In Singapore it's not even
legal to engage in homosexual sex, and there's no recognition of same-sex
unions:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-
sex_unions_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-
sex_unions_in_Singapore)

Pushing for gay marriage in a place where gays aren't even legally allowed to
have sex is jumping right into the deep end. (I should clarify that the gay
community here is nonetheless pretty active anyway, and there haven't been
crackdowns in a long while. Homosexuality is pretty much tolerated as long as
the sexual acts are kept private.)

All in all it's a strange move for a multinational corporation to make,
considering how sociopolitical the issue is. Our government is very keen on
having dynamic foreign firms set up shop here, but maybe not so keen once they
take stances opposed to legislative policy. Google has established a big
enough office (and datacenters) here to possibly not want to risk hurting
relations (in my uninformed view).

I'd guess it's a hoax, taking all these factors into account, and the lack of
an official press release.

~~~
paulgb
Homosexual sex was illegal in some states as recently as 2003. Consodering the
transformation in the USA since then, I don't think it's premature to start
campaigning for marriage rights.

~~~
einhverfr
If Justice O'Connor had her way it might still be ;-)

Her concurrence with the judgement of Lawrence v. Texas was only on the basis
that Texas singled out homosexual sex specifically. In her view, states could
ban blow jobs and anal sex for everybody, but not allow it for straight
couples and ban it for gays.

I must say the logic has a certain appeal to it. If sex truly is a private
matter between two people then cohabiting with multiple partners as if they
were spouses should be legally protected too under the same logic. But if we
say equal protection is what matters and you can't specifically single out
gays, then that problem goes away.

As it is, Lawrence has opened up a fair bit of uncertainty what the Supreme
Court will do to Lawrence and de facto bigamy laws (enacted in really only a
minority of states) if and when they review a case on appeal. (Most states do
not recognize informal arrangements as potentially bigamous.)

------
grandalf
I'm in favor of gay marriage, pet marriage, sibling marriage, and all sorts of
other kinds of marriage that people tend to feel the need to ban.

However, I think it's absurd that the state is involved in marriage. Google's
move, while perhaps pragmatic in nature, reveals a very strong sentiment
legitimizing the state role in marriage, which is the basis for all the
backwardness.

Only when the state becomes involves in things can politicians attempt to
control what others do via the power of the state. I'd rather see Google
encourage people to just "marry" each other with private vows and no license
or other nonsense.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Private vows don't work so well when your bigoted inlaws decide you can't see
your lover at the hospital. People have compiled lists of _hundreds_ of
privileges granted through marriage that are difficult-to-impossible to
arrange any other enforceable way. We'd have to rewrite family law from
scratch.

That said, I don't know that they are better at lobbying than anyone else
their stockholders could give the money to, which would be the only reason
they ought to involve the corporation.

~~~
dangero
What privileges are difficult-to-impossible to arrange without a legal concept
of marriage? Just curious. I also believe that the root of the issue is coming
from the government being involved in the marriage conversation at all and I'm
curious why that would be hard to change.

~~~
cdcarter
Off the first hit for "marriage equality"
(<http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts>), here are some choice ones:

* Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed. * The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists. * With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.

~~~
dangero
OK. Thanks for the list.

I think there are two issues in this "same sex marriage" debate that are being
confused by people on both sides. One is the special rights and privileges
given to married couples, and the other is the actual word "marriage". What I
was suggesting is that the government should drop the term "marriage" from
their vocabulary and change it to something else, like "domestic partnership".
I highly doubt that anyone employing rational thought would suggest we can do
away with the concept of mutually exclusive partnership between two people in
the legal realm. Part of what the people on the right are arguing for is to
not have the actual term "marriage" redefined by the government. That word has
a lot of tradition and meaning. If we turn the conversation towards removing
that word from the government's laws and replacing it with something that has
less specific meaning to people, then the conversation is purely about equal
rights and not a fight over a word and the tradition behind it. I think that's
more what people are getting at when they suggest that the government
shouldn't be involved in marriage.

~~~
henrikschroder
Oh, separate but equal?

No.

~~~
dangero
How is that separate but equal? Who is making anyone separate? I'm suggesting
the government should treat everyone the same.

My understanding of "separate but equal" historically had to do with
separating students based on race into separate schools. If the government
were to say, "OK, call it a marriage, call it whatever you want, but 2 people
can form what we call a 'domestic partnership' that creates certain legal
rights by filling out this form." How is that separate but equal?

~~~
pbiggar
I think it sounded like you were saying that the new rule would be only for
same-sex couples, and that opposite-sex couples would continue to call it
"marriage".

~~~
dangero
Ahh, I should have made that more clear the first time.

------
staunch
The comments on the article are funny. People saying this is a reason people
might switch to Google from Apple or from Google to Bing, then being reminded
that all the tech companies support the LGBT community.

~~~
taligent
Especially since Apple and Microsoft has been supportive of this issue way
before Google was.

Also you know Tim Cook being gay and all.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
I guess it says a lot that I had no idea Tim Cook was gay. Since it seems
society thinks it is not a big enough deal to warrant a mention.

~~~
corin_
It has actually been mentioned quite a bit -
<https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Tim+Cook+Gay>

Maybe less than you'd expect, but quite a few people deemed it a big enough
deal to mention.

------
blu3jack
Call me cynical, but I wonder (A) what is the real motivation behind this, &
(B) how seriously is this campaign going to be pursued in unfriendly terrain?

I suppose the Singapore test will be interesting as it is some homosexual acts
are technically illegal but not generally enforced. Sounds like a good
candidate for an easy win... but if it's ineffective there it will presumably
be ineffective everywhere.

~~~
ktizo
(A) It loses them edge if they can't employ the people they want in the
locations where they want them.

(B) See (A)

------
webwanderings
There's only one and single source reporting this news and everyone seems to
be linking them without adding anything else. I don't know about others, but
this seems suspicious.

EDIT: I am no anti-LGBT but saying above on principle.

~~~
ktizo
Here is the press page for the conference where this was announced by Google’s
Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe. - <http://www.globallgbtworkplacesummit.org/press--
media.html>

Also, may I just say that as a I am a lover of smut, innuendo and really bad
puns, I think that Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is a wonderful name for a man in his
position.

~~~
webwanderings
Great, this makes sense now.

------
cheez
As long as companies are gonna be able to lobby, might as well lobby for good
stuff.

~~~
smsm42
Did you ever see anybody lobbying for stuff they consider bad? Of course
everybody lobbies for good stuff, just definitions of good stuff differ
between people.

Or you meant "As long as companies are gonna be able to lobby, might as well
lobby for stuff I agree with"?

~~~
Nursie
Yup, all that lobbying to be able to carry on polluting air and waterways, to
keep tobacco sales and advertising legal, the people doing those things
thought they were good and pure too - right?

There's lobbying that's evil, and the people doing it know it's evil, but it
affects their bottom line so they do it anyway.

~~~
smsm42
Only way to not pollute air and waterways at all is to cease all industry and
somehow dispose of the large percentage of the human population. Otherwise,
they'd have some impact on the environment, it's inevitable. This impact can
be bigger or lesser, and can be measured against they usefulness of what comes
out of it. Of course, producers argue that their products are very useful and
their impacts on the environment are minimal and well controlled. They may be
wrong or misrepresenting how actually good is what they in fact do, but I
never heard anybody arguing, for example "let's destroy the environment, to
hell with it, who needs it anyway". Did you?

Same for tobacco sales and advertising - of course, many people - especially
those who enjoy smoking - think it is a good thing that it is legal. They also
think it is a good thing that they, being sane adults, can choose how to
behave and manage their own bodies and property. Some people think instead it
is a good thing to deny certain people choice in what they can do with their
bodies and their property, for their own good. There's obviously some
disagreement on the topic, but again, I don't see how the former are more evil
than the latter. If anything, I'd prefer a smoker over somebody that wants to
control minute details of my behavior using government coercion any day of the
week, but that's my opinion of what is good. But I'd really want to know why
you not only claim it's evil but also claim everybody who disagrees with you
on these topics knows they are evil. That's an ambitious statement, I'd like
to see some substantiation of it.

------
shalmanese
A lot of people outside of Google don't take it's "Don't be evil" pledge
seriously anymore but I know from talking to employees that it's still
something Google cares deeply about. Most of the people in this thread seem to
analyzing it from an amoral, self-interested business perspective and twisting
facts and circumstances to justify that narrative. I think the far more
parsimonious explanation is that Google felt like it couldn't sit on the
sidelines of the gay marriage debate any longer and still uphold it's values.

------
danparsonson
To the vocal minority who pop up on threads like this and argue that gay
marriage is something that should be opposed, I offer the following:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_t...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_the_gay_agenda.html)

If you find yourself thinking bad thoughts while watching this, stop yourself
and try to empathise with those whom you so blithely speak against. It won't
hurt and no-one has to know ;-)

------
hmoghnie
How about a campaign to end world hunger, government transparency, proper SEC
accounting, banks accountability, or real-time online voting for current
issues and abolish congress.

~~~
Goronmon
You should get right on those then.

------
lstroud
So, what does a political campaign / stance mean for a search company? Would
they skew search results to support a position? If I am their competitor, it
seems like an opportunity for FUD, even if they are doing the right thing.

------
Apocryphon
I'm interested in the legal effects of this. Singapore, for all of its
prosperity and advances, isn't a democratic country. And I'm wondering what
the EU would think about a multinational lobbying in one of their member
states.

------
vegas
How about some fact checking prior to launching into an enflamed debate? This
seems a rather unlikely event, and the source provided doesn't look like a
tremendously trustworthy news source. Where's the Google PR statement?

------
nhangen
This might not relate, but I'd be interested to know how many of the people
that think this is a good idea would also support Google were they to take a
stance on something as charged as abortion?

------
TamDenholm
I'm waiting for the crowd that got all upset over the rainbow oreo picture to
start their outcry about this, they vowed to boycott oreos but i doubt they'd
do the same with Google.

------
eliasmacpherson
I'd much rather they campaigned to ban marriage for everyone. This is awful,
it's bad enough as a government/legal institution without corporations
weighing in.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Marriage isn't a bad insitution. It's easy to say it's unncessary, but then
your partner dies, and now you have no legal rights or protections.

~~~
eliasmacpherson
Ask someone whose been divorced! I forgot to add religion to that list. If it
was gay civil union, there would be far less outcry or interest. Some gay
marriage campaigners are for religious recognition, and that's a hard battle.

I don't think marriage in its current form as a relgious, legal and government
institution is that great, and I don't think getting corporations involved is
going to improve it.

Marriage is certainly not the only way to ensure legal rights or protections
for people. That what's married people are, just people. As an institution,
marriage interferes with that.

In fact where I live, marriage grants some legal rights, like cheaper taxes,
but takes away others from married women, who don't receive our equivalent of
'social security' if their partner is still working and they are unemployed.
That and social conventions around divorce, which has quite a high rate, can
make Marriage a miserable institution for more than half of the people who
have got involved in it.

In times past, Marriage was used as an enforcer of policies that kept women
under the thumb of a male hierarchy, and that cannot be denied. In the present
day, I think alternatives can and should be sought, where these external
forces such as corporations, governments, relgions and corporations cannot
interfere with people's private lives to push their institutional agendas. One
way to achieve this would be to ban different treatment for married couples
versus normal people, banning outright is too extreme, I was being flippant.

------
gdilla
I wonder if US 'conservatives', will erect an alternative, conservative search
engine, like they have for wikipedia (<http://www.conservapedia.com>)?

~~~
omgsean
If it's meant to appeal to old conservatives surely it will be called "The
Google"

------
drivebyacct2
There is still no primary source on this, and the only citation I can find
that Bob Amnnibale is gay is this article and those reposting it.

This might be a better source: [http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google-
wants-the-world...](http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google-wants-the-
world-to-legalize-love)

~~~
corin_
There's no press out there calling me gay, but if something like this happened
in close enough proximity to me that I was asked for a quote they could still
call me "an openly gay something something...", the lack of citation doesn't
mean it's incorrect, it's more likely to mean he told them that.

~~~
drivebyacct2
I mostly meant that the initial information on this had been copy-pasted
across several sites (I've seen it four different places before it was even
posted here) and I was trying to spot check information. I didn't mean to
doubt the actual facts or anything, just a mini-snopes.

~~~
glhaynes
Worth doing; there's no official/PR link for this "global campaign".

------
schmoe2
How do you configure Firefox to make Duck Duck Go the default search engine?

~~~
mkl
Why on Earth are you asking that here, on a HN thread about Google and gay
marriage, instead of just googling it?

Oh. Now I get it. You're a homophobe, and by the new account, a coward.

~~~
Hikari
why would you start insulting random people because they happen to hold a
different view from the mainstream? it's sound like dictature to me. Have you
ever considered that you can be against gay mariage without wanting to harm
gay people or resent any kind of hate toward them?

~~~
natep
Yes, I've considered it, and no, it's not possible, since inequal marriage
rights harms gays by definition. What scenario did you have in mind?

~~~
mibbitier
Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions
other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that.

Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of
"men" to include women :/

~~~
danparsonson
> Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions
> other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that.

How else would you categorise it? What other reason do you have to oppose the
slight broadening of the definition of a word? "Loving union between a man and
a women" into "Loving union between two people"?

> Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of
> "men" to include women :/

That's a non sequitur and I hope you know it. Redefining marriage in this way
is more akin to the last century's redefinition of the word 'citizen' in the
US and the UK to include black people - it erases a distinction that was
incorrectly made in the first place. "Men" and "Women" are biologically
separable.

~~~
mibbitier
Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient
and reduces the need for clarification :)

We have words such as "waitress" and "waiter", because it adds useful
information. It tells us their sex. It's not sexist to have such words, it's
just useful.

Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is
useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and
reduces the chances of faux pas.

To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our
language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not
matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black
waiter. It's irrelevant.

~~~
danparsonson
> Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more
> efficient and reduces the need for clarification :)

Well that's my point precisely - the fact that you see gay marriage as being
different to heterosexual marriage simply because of who is involved
illustrates the flaw in your reasoning. If you think you would feel awkward
entering into a conversation with someone who may or may not be gay, may I
suggest you refer to their 'partner' or their 'other half' until it becomes
clear what gender the person is that you're talking about? Or just be direct
and say 'your... wife? husband?'. Most reasonable people really won't mind.

But let's be honest - your delicately-phrased attempt to pour logic onto the
question does not disguise the fact that your concerns run beyond linguistic
convenience. It's a very weak argument.

> Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is
> useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and
> reduces the chances of faux pas.

It's really not that useful - if you need to know, ask, but the chances are
that you don't - and as I'm sure you realise, 'mere' language is a powerful
tool for enforcing segregation and bigotry. It makes a real difference to the
people actually involved, and, if you're honest with yourself, not a jot of
difference to you. If you think about it, carving the world up based on sexual
preference would be hilarious in its stupidity if it didn't cause so much
pain. I mean, honestly, how does anyone's choice of lover alter your life?
Millions of people are in happy homosexual relationships RIGHT NOW and I bet
you hadn't noticed.

> To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our
> language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does
> not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a
> black waiter. It's irrelevant.

Actually, likening the redefinition of 'marriage' to the redefinition of
'man', as you did in the parent comment, is silly. The parallel I was drawing
was between predjudice that existed (and in places still does) based on racial
differences and the predjudice that you are demonstrating, whether you realise
it or not, against homosexuality.

~~~
mibbitier
> the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual
> marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your
> reasoning.

It _IS_ different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of
who is involved.

Logic doesn't seem to be working... As someone else noted, it's like extreme
feminists who consider 'waitress' to be sexist.

What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil
partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all?

~~~
danparsonson
> It IS different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of
> who is involved.

No, marriage is a social construct whereas gender is based on biology -
there's a big difference there. You can measure the gender of a person without
them having to give you any information, but (as you have argued) not the
gender of a person's spouse. Besides, you've already made this point earlier:

> > > Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific
> words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant.

So which is it? Are these things relevant or not? You don't need to say 'black
waiter', but you do need to say 'civil partnership'? Why is one important but
not the other?

Once again - your insistence upon this distinction and the value of it speaks
volumes about your unconscious prejudices. Perhaps you like being able to say
you're married and have everyone know you're not gay? But of course that would
be outright homophobia and you're still apparently labouring under the
misapprehension that you don't suffer from that. Perhaps you're actually a
closet homosexual and trying hard to deflect people away from finding out? If
that's the case then I'm genuinely sorry for you, as the need to hide from the
world can take a terrible toll on a person. Fortunately our society is
(generally) becoming more open.

If it's useful to keep a different word for same-sex marriages, perhaps you
also advocate having different words for inter-racial marriages, marriages
between people who are more than a certain number of years apart, who wear
different types of clothes, etc.? After all, that's all equally "useful"
information and one wouldn't want to make a faux-pas.

> What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil
> partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all?

It's very easy as a white, heterosexual male to insist that words are
meaningless and ask 'who cares?', but the reality is that linguistic
distinctions contribute significantly to prejudice. You can't have "completely
equal rights for all" whilst making such distinctions between people - that's
a sad fact of human psychology (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-
group%E2%80%93out-group_bias> for example). Additionally, let's not forget
that the whole debate in the larger world isn't just about the definition of a
word - it's exactly about creating a situation of equal rights for all that
doesn't exist currently. It's not about being 'offended' and the fact that you
trivialise the issue thus suggests that you really don't understand the issues
at stake.

It's not only completely ridiculous to make a distinction about someone based
on their sexual preference, it's harmful and often very unpleasant to be on
the receiving end of - perhaps you read this article when it did the rounds on
here? [http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist-
hu...](http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist-humour-isnt-
just-a-joke/) That's about sexism but the point is the same. "It's just a
joke!" "It's just a word!" etc.

If you truly desire equal rights for all, then the 'redefinition' of marriage
shouldn't matter to you. On the other hand if you want to keep tabs on who's
gay and who's not - you're homophobic. You may insist you're not but that
stubborn refusal to introspect or question yourself doesn't change the fact.

~~~
mibbitier
Quite a lot of personal attacks there...

We're all minorities, depending on how you cut the population. The question is
whether you let it define you negatively and become a 'victim', or just get on
with being happy. People who get offended by words are wasting their energy on
silly things that don't matter, and often actually making racism/sexism/etc
worse by drawing attention to things that aren't actually there in the first
place. Judge people by their actions. Not by words.

If you really want to redefine the word 'marriage', then go ahead. I do not
think it's the most pressing fight for those after equal rights though. If I
was gay, I certainly wouldn't care, as long as I was free to love who I like.

I'm done here...

~~~
natep
Being told that you

a) are possibly homophobic, or a closeted homosexual

and

b) enjoy certain privileges as a white, heterosexual, (cis) male

Is not meant to be a personal attack, IMO, but a wake-up call. Read it again,
as if danparsonson were talking to a third person, and maybe you'll gain some
new perspective.

If you feel like marriage has had an immutable definition since forever and
just now, people are trying to change it for the first time, you should check
your facts:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture)

And words do matter. You can tell a lot about a person or culture based on the
words they use.

~~~
danparsonson
Thank you - that's it exactly.

------
incest
Honest question, when will LGBT support incest? Having relatives covered by
insurance would be great. We could abort if we conceive or adopt if we want
children.

~~~
UntitledNo4
I'm not trying to convince you, I guess you are beyond that, but for other
people who think "maybe this person has a point":

The issue for most homosexual couple is not a semantic issue: to be allowed to
have their relationship legalised by calling it "marriage", but to a legal
issue: to be allowed to legalise their relationship for the reason that they
want to have the same legal rights.

Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as
"civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not
being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came
from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships
instead of marriage (ref: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835>).

An example to the rights that are in question is that health insurance in
Germany is cheaper for couples who marry or who are civil partners than it is
for two adults in a relationship not legally defined (i.e. two girlfriends, a
girlfriend and a boyfriend, two boyfriends).

Finally, by linking homosexuality and incest, the poster tries to create a
link between homosexuality which is now acceptable by most people to incest
which is universally unaccepted and immoral. In western countries one is also
legal and the other isn't.

~~~
adrianhoward
_Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as
"civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not
being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came
from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships
instead of marriage (ref:<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835>)._

Read that campaign again - it's as much about LGBT people having a right to
marry as it is about civil partnerships for straight folk. It's about equal
rights. Some of my gay friends would prefer to marry over a civil partnership.
My partner and I would prefer a civil partnership - but can't coz we're
straight.

Indeed - in the UK anyway - LGBT are likely to have the right to marry soon
(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412222>). I don't think we'd be changing the
legislation if folk weren't unhappy with the current status quo.

~~~
UntitledNo4
Just to clarify: 1\. I did read the campaign but I didn't refer directly to
this particular campaign but rather to the general situation in response to
equating support for gay rights to support for other illegal activities (in
this case incest, but sometimes it paedophilia or bestiality). 2\. I am gay
myself in a long-term relationship (10 years now) and I'm not interested in
getting married myself, and neither do some of my gay friends who are also in
long-term relationships. That's why I wrote "most homosexual couples" which I
admit is not accurate either since I haven't taken a survey. Maybe it should
have read "many" or maybe "in my experience, most", but the main point of my
post remains the same and is that while for some (however many) gay couple the
issue is also semantical, it's first and foremost an issue of equal rights.
3\. I don't really want to comment about this campaign because I find it
confusing. I don't understand why they don't start at home (USA, where
Microsoft are already active promoting same-sex legalised partnerships) and in
countries where the attitude towards homosexuality is generally positive, but
which have not yet legalised same-sex partnerships (e.g. Israel). This is not
criticism for the campaign, just an explanation why I my comments weren't
about it. 4\. I do support your and your partner's right to be civilly-
partnered as opposed to getting married. I hope that you will be able to do
that very soon.

