
Google backs gay marriage - kirubakaran
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html
======
jwilliams
Personally, I have some concerns over this approach.

Google is a mediator between users and information. As such, it's really
important to have and appear to have as little bias as possible - otherwise it
taints the information that is coming through. To be effective as a tool,
Google really needs to be transparent and impartial as possible. (See Google
in China as a counterexample).

Also, I question how effective this approach would be. I'm not sure many
people that oppose gay marriage would be swayed by Google's statement... I
mean, Google has a strong brand, but I really doubt people will vote no
because "Google says so" in the same way as they would with say, Oprah.

I think there are other advocacy paths that are more effective, and don't
spend Google's brand/position in this way.

~~~
rms
This idea that neutrality is something to strive for ends up marginalizing the
correct point of view by giving equal time to the opposing point of view. In
this case, the correct answer is obvious, that gay marraige should be
permitted at the federal level. Being neutral about gay marriage is like being
neutral about evolution -- it only ends up making the creationists look more
legitimate. They don't deserve any attention or neutrality. In this case,
Google has no bias because they are right.

~~~
mynameishere
_Being neutral about gay marriage is like being neutral about evolution_

What a strange analogy. Evolution is a natural phenomena, while marriage is a
state-regulated union. There is a set of reasons apart from tradition why
legal marriage exists, and very little in that set would apply with any
frequency to "gay marriage". The most obvious reason, of course, is that the
division of labor between the sexes is inevitably derivative of the
constraints created by pregnancy.

Brin doesn't really argue beyond this,

 _we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality._

But this is an error. It's an easy error to make.

~~~
Alex3917
"The most obvious reason, of course, is that the division of labor between the
sexes is inevitably derivative of the constraints created by pregnancy."

You are claiming that this is the primary reason why we have state-regulated
marriage? Two words: [citation needed].

~~~
mynameishere
_The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is
attributed to the many basic social and personal functions for which it
provides structure, such as sexual gratification and regulation, division of
labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and
satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status, and companionship;
perhaps its strongest function concerns procreation, the care of children and
their education and socialization, and regulation of lines of descent._

<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/366152/marriage>

~~~
Alex3917
That's about marriage, not state-regulated marriage. You are being
intellectually dishonest.

~~~
astine
The quote is about marriage as a social institution. States are known to
regulate social institutions within their spheres of influence.

~~~
Alex3917
Nothing you've said amounts to anything near a citation for his claim.

------
DanielBMarkham
As the father of a gay son who one day wants to marry, I am opposed to same-
sex marriage. The word "marriage" has significant religious and cultural
significance and this significance should be preserved. Same-sex unions with
all of the benefits? Sign me up.

More significantly, I disagree with Google's taking a position on this issue.
I think corporations should think seriously about taking positions in
domestic, cultural issues. Civil rights issues? Go for it. Changing the
definition of religious terms? Out of bounds. I'm not religious, but this
seems to make the most sense in my own life. Google should do the same.

If Google wants to wade into politics, then welcome to the party. I'm sure
they are comfortable with the results of becoming political -- when people
with opposing views make and change the laws in order to diminish Google's
political power. That's the way politics works. I'm also concerned with
idealists who only whine about things that are easy and never take a stand
where they could make a real difference or where it could really hurt. What
about billions in China not getting the full internet? Well, to listen to
Google that's a much more complex subject.

Right.

~~~
maur33n
I am opposed to our government getting involved in marriage, period.

Gays nor straights should have to turn to the government to have their unions
blessed.

But since straights have such advantages given to them as a result of our
legal system, it would be silly not to have the rights given to all.

Marriage is NOT a religious construct. It is a construct granted because of
other dependent bodies of law, including taxes, health care, child custody,
property rights.

Without marriage laws to assist, it is more difficult to have our courts
administer the other dependent laws. You are therefore denying gays equal
access to the legal system and its protections as a result.

You have the right to believe in whatever you want.

You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or
protections that others have.

Go to church all you want. Just leave me out of your bigotry.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I'm not religious -- perhaps you missed that point.

Marriage is deeply a religious idea. Religions and their ideas of marriage
pre-date all existing governments and other social structures. Therefore it
would be silly to make an argument that marriage is government-based: it's
not. Governments simply codified and wrote into law those commonly-held ideas
of marriage. Later on, as society became more complex, sure, other rights were
given based on these definitions.

Civil Unions offer all of the advantages of marriage without getting into a
cultural war (unless you want to do that).

Sounds like you enjoy feeling very self-righteous about your beliefs, ie, the
whole "in MY country" routine. I wouldn't want to deny rights to anybody. Why
don't you calm down a bit and realize that you're trying to argue with
somebody who basically agrees with you?

And don't call me a bigot. You don't know me, and based on your post you don't
even understand my position on the issue. It's an ad hominem.

~~~
ja2ke
By this logic you also advocate replacing any state or federal use of the term
"marriage" with "civil union" for heterosexual couples as well, and leave
"marriage" as a term exclusively to religious groups, then?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I don't have an opinion one way or another on that one.

Since the gist of my argument was "let's not fight over something we can
solve" perhaps we just add the term "civil union" wherever the term marriage
appears. Or perhaps we have a constitutional ammendment that makes the two
phrases equal. For instance, I don't think you could go back in the historical
record and change terms. The answer to that question may be based on how you
make laws.

Another poster made a comment about 3 or more people in a union. I believe
this follows naturally as well from an extension of the term "marriage".
Things like multiple partners seem just fine in the 21st century. At least to
me, but I'm a libertarian. Since the term seems to be opening up, as a hacker
I say make the new definition in one place to be equal to anywhere else the
term "marriage" was used.

------
sgrove
Wow! One generally doesn't expect that out of a corporation, much less from
google. I'm very much impressed, and at the same time pleased with their
stance.

I do wonder if I would be similarly impressed with it if their stance were the
opposite, and whether I would feel comfortable supporting them by using their
products and services afterward. Very gutsy decision to come out on a divisive
issue like this.

~~~
qqq
> much less from google

Why?

~~~
migpwr
it's probably because of the size of the company and what they're risking by
having an opinion on this non-business issue.

~~~
sgrove
Exactly. Breaking it down, what do they gain? Possibly some good will of the
more liberal users. But powerful religious figures could just as easily (and
almost certainly will) turn it into something of a pr nightmare that will
ultimately affect some of google's users.

------
mattjaynes
The primary argument for gay "marriage" seems to be equal rights for both gay
couples and married couples. Another key argument I keep hearing is to "keep
government out of the bedroom."

Couldn't both of those goals be accomplished without getting into a cultural
war over the term "marriage"?

If "civil unions" are legislated to having the same rights as marriage - then
that solves the equality problem.

Also, "civil unions" can have a much looser definition. So if there is a
threesome of men that really love each other and want to make a life
commitment to each other and have equal rights as a married couple, they could
do so. However, with gay "marriage" that would not be possible unless it also
included plural marriage - and given our nation's history that's pretty
unlikely.

"Civil Unions" just seem to be much more flexible in preserving rights of
people in minority situations. Even for non-homosexuals. I had good friends
who were cousins in their 50's and had lived together non-sexually for over 30
years. They were inseparable and they shared all their resources. When one of
them had a brain tumor and was in the hospital, fortunately because they lived
in Germany, it was no issue, but if they had lived in the US, there would have
been issues with visiting, etc from what I hear. For them "marriage" would not
be something they wanted obviously, but it would have made their lives much
easier in many situations if they could have had a "civil union".

So, I'm all for having equal rights and government out of the bedroom, but gay
marriage just doesn't seem to be the right solution for those two goals. 1) It
leaves out other very legitimate situations where companions - either non-
sexual or plural arrangements would not have equal rights, and 2) it starts a
divisive cultural war that could be avoided. Peace and love right?

~~~
cbrinker
So you support "seperate but equal?" That was the winning attitude of our
nation for about a century; and that turned out just dandy!

Why should polygamy or polyandry be outlawed? If multiple people feel they
love each other enough that they wish to be bound by the legal act of
marriage, who are you to say otherwise? Who does it hurt?

This concept of marriage and single sex partners is not only anti-
evolutionary, but is only backed by religious nonsense. Granted some animals
wish to be this way, but why should anyone say others cannot?

~~~
khafra
I see a common thread between your post and the gp--marriage vs. civil union
is an artificial distinction. The best solution I've heard is to remove
government-sanctioned marriage, and replace it with civil union. Religious
institutions can still perform religiously-recognized marriages; so there's no
controversy over eroding definitions. Government gives the same rights and
privileges to civil unions, regardless of who's involved in them, so there's
no controversy over differing levels of privilege.

The only push-back I anticipate would be from the Dominionists who can't stand
seeing church and state separate a little further.

------
geuis
Good on ya Sergey Brin. Its nice to see a company taking official support in
regards to the things that affect their employees in non-work situations.

And for those saying companies don't take sides or make announcements, lets
name a couple. Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays. Why, because the founder is a
hard-right Christian who thinks everyone should go to church or they go to
hell. I worked there when I was a teenager, firsthand experience.

How about Dominos? The founder built a town outside of Naples in Florida
strictly for Christians. Ava Maria, I think its called.

And don't forget SC Johnson, "a family company". Jeesh.

~~~
tbrooks
When is the last time you saw Chick-fil-A write their political stance on
their corporate blog?

~~~
jmatt
Excellent point.

Never. Neither does In-N-Out, another privately owned "openly" christian
company.

Staying private is one good way to alleviate issues with upset share holders
and continuing to passively support the owners beliefs. This is fine as long
as the company still respects the rights of the share holders, customers and
employees.

As many have already stated, and i'll reiterate. There are two issues being
discussed here. 1) gay rights. [no question they should have equal rights] 2)
entangling support for social issues with a public company [this is where
people have problems].

All the publicly held multi-national companies that I know of offer benefits
to a homosexual partner. But they do it through the normal workflow of HR. The
problem is Google does everything differently. Including making this
announcement. So the question remains is this an acceptable way to do it?
Google thinks so. (now my libertarian free market tendancies come in to play)
If you support the way they did it, buy some more Google and give them a
positive blog article. If you disagree sell it or short it and go use
duckduckgo or yahoo.

------
bdr
For all of you who are worried about your stock price: don't forget to
consider what effect this has on Google's culture. From a business
perspective, if you look only at the external effects, taking this stand
probably does weigh out to a bad idea. But the internal benefits of employee
loyalty and a culture of tolerance might outweigh that, making the blog post
justified even from your strictly financial perspective.

------
epi0Bauqu
_Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats
and Republicans,_

Please, isn't Google made up of 99% Democrats? I'm all for gay marriage, but
that is a misrepresentation. One Republican does not make great diversity.

~~~
rsheridan6
What about libertarians? I don't know of any at Google (except for that guy
who wants to build a libertarian city on an offshore platform), but I do know
that they're highly overrepresented among hackers.

------
patrickg-zill
Did they donate money to one side or the other, or did they only express an
"official" opinion?

And how would a person who was supporting Prop8 (say, a practicing Orthodox
Jew, a Tibetan Buddhist, a Muslim, a Sikh, or a Christian, all faiths which
explicitly proscribe homosexual behavior) feel about working at Google after
hearing this?

~~~
Niten
How would they feel about working at Google after hearing this? There are two
possibilities...

1) Said Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc., while privately disapproving of
gay marriage, recognizes that his right to be offended ends where my rights
begin. Said employee does not wish to shove his own personal brand of
"morality" down everyone else's throats by codifying discrimination into the
State Constitution, and therefore has no issue with Google's stance on the
matter.

Or,

2) Said Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc., is upset with his employer
because said employee feels he should be entitled to infringe upon the human
rights of others. Said employee is free to leave Google, as he is doubtless of
little value to the company, or to society in general.

~~~
gscott
Google employees should be careful to not mention that they are "Jew, Muslim,
Christian, etc". If they want to keep their jobs they need to align themselves
with company policy.

------
staunch
I wonder how much shit Sergey is going to take for this. Will it be enough to
stop him from doing similar things in the future? The day Google stops being
able to do surprisingly/crazy things like this is the beginning of the end.

~~~
Prrometheus
If I were a shareholder, I wouldn't want my company to be running around
taking stands on social issues unrelated to the business of the company. Let
Sergey advocate against proposition 8 in his private life if he feels that
strongly about it.

~~~
lacker
It's not just Sergey's position. It's Google's position. And it is very
related to Google, since there are a lot of gay software engineers, this is
very important to many of them, and Google wants to attract and keep these
employees.

~~~
migpwr
A software engineers sexuality should have nothing to do with his/her work.
It's like google asking people to vote for obama because they want to attract
and keep black engineers. Bullshit, that's right.

~~~
silencio
No. Google would have to tell people to stop being racist, not to vote for
Obama, for that to make any sense.

Also, my sexuality SHOULD have nothing to do with my work, but if I were
affected adversely by this or other similar discriminatory nonsense, it would
most likely _affect_ my work. I daresay the same would apply to anyone
regardless of sexuality.

Prop 8 is about more than just marriage, it's about what _comes with_
marriage.

------
froo
To me, this boils down to a few simple points.

    
    
      Should Sergey have posted this on the official company blog? Probably not
      Do I support his position even though I'm not gay? Sure do.
      Are people blowing this way out of proportion? Absolutely.

------
carpo
To someone who thinks that gay marriage is about equality, this could be seen
as similar to a companies stance on racism or slavery (which is obvious now,
but wasn't a hundred years ago). If Google believe that in the future people
will look back on this issue in the same way, then this could also be a savvy
business position. Also, in the eyes of Sergey, this is probably just another
way for Google to not be evil.

------
michael_browne
First of all, I think those who brought up the question of why THIS issue when
there are other, more life-and-death serious problems in the world (such as
AIDS orphans in Africa) are missing the point. Sergey didn’t decide to come
out in opposition to prop 8 because he was just looking for some social cause
to throw Google behind or because he thought it was necessarily the most
pressing or deserving issue, but because it is something that will directly
affect the company and the employees he is in charge of and responsible for.
As he states, it "is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition
on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8."
Clearly, this decision was made not because Sergey believes that banning same-
sex marriage is wrong in the larger moral sense (though obviously he does) but
instead because of the comparatively specific, micro concern of how it well
effect the people who work at his company.

While Google surely puts more thought into how its practices affect society
than the average giant corporation, it is hardly a charity and I don’t think
this statement should be any indication that it plans on becoming one. "Don't
be evil" is still a long way on the altruism scale from becoming a
humanitarian NGO.

...

Is it, though, appropriate for a head of a public company to officially align
said company on a piece of controversial (and not strictly relevant to the
business) legislation? Well, perhaps not. In this situation however, I think
it was an admirable and fitting action. It reinforces Google’s "not business
as usual" stance and commitment to social awareness and doing good. Of course,
though, there will be many who see this as the opposite of "doing good."

The values of tolerance, diversity, and meritocratic inclusion are, though, so
fundamental to the company (and, when at its best, the Valley and the tech
industry in general) that this seems like a natural and reasonable move.
Though I agree there is certainly room for argument, particularly over
specifics, here, many will surely see opposition to Prop. 8 as reflective of
the above values. I took Sergey’s blog post as more a statement of "live and
let live" and respect for all than as a focused and specific endorsement of
gay marriage.

I don't work at Google but I do live in the Bay Area and I'm confident that
the employee culture at the company is such that those with strong feelings
against gay rights are used to keeping their position largely to themselves.
In other words, conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Sikh/etc. individuals who
work there have, I’m sure, resigned to keep their religious convictions a
personal matter in order to effectively and civilly participate in a diverse
environment. Consequently, I would be surprised if this pronouncement causes
much of a stir even from pro-Prop. 8 Googlers.

~~~
mattjaynes
Wow, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Seriously, great points. On a lighter
note - I guess if we can get more AIDS orphans to work at Google, it would
shift priorities ;)

------
mattjaynes
Dear Sergey -

You're surely aware of how divisive this issue is by just looking at the
polling on this matter. By taking a hard stand on a very divisive issue on
behalf of your whole company, you are spending an enormous amount of your
Google brand and influence on this issue. Right?

According to gaydemographics.org, there are less than 100,000 gay couples in
California. Let's assume _all_ of them want to get married. Let's also assume,
which I think is reasonable, that those gay couples wanting to get married are
already cohabiting, have plenty of food, have shelter, have access to world
class health care etc - and after this huge expenditure of Google influence
and brand change, that will be the same - but they might have a marriage
certificate.

So, I just wonder why you chose that issue over this issue - that of AIDS
orphans in Africa (unfortunately that label often hides the fact that these
are real living breathing children). According to one.org, there are 12
million children who have lost BOTH parents to AIDS and are on their own now.
This is a rapidly growing problem and there are estimated to be 25 million
AIDS orphans by 2010. The sheer scale of this disaster is mind-boggling - yet
it's mostly an information problem that needs to be solved. These children
need parents. There are many couples around the world that are eager for
children. Who better than Google to find a solution? For many of these
children, adoption would mean hope where now there is only despair. As
impactful as a marriage certificate would be to 100,000 gay couples in one of
the richest states of the richest country - I'm guessing an adoption
certificate would be tremendously more valuable to these children who are
truly destitute. And I'm also guessing this would be much more inspirational
and unifying to Google's share-holders and users.

In deciding on where to spend your resources, I would suggest watching this:
[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html)

and reading this (the irony is not lost on me):
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118124139854628069.html>

I can understand the draw to be edgy and controversial, but sometimes the
causes which are most worthy also are the least popular. I applaud the work
the Google Foundation is doing, don't get me wrong - but please consider the
costs vs benefits to Google in working towards these two pieces of paper I
mentioned: the gay marriage license for wealthy westerners or the adoption
certificate for a destitute, yet living breathing child who has lost both
parents in Africa.

Cheers, Matt

~~~
maxklein
Your argument is just plain old stupid. Not bad, not poor, just stupid.

Because there are big problems, one should not solve the small problems?
Because I know of aids, I should not give a dollar to the local begger?

Please stop this bullshit about aids orphans in Africa - it's just propaganda
by the charity organisations who want you to give them money. Children are
children everywhere in the world. Those aids orphans are not abandoned by
Africans - every human being has the nurturing instinct. Neighbours are not
letting orphans starve in Africa. Africa does not NEED you to solve this
problem - it is a large problem, but it's not a critical problem.

There are WORSE things, but they are not sexy. There are men who work their
entire life shoveling coal for hardly any money to survive, but nobody cares
about them. They are not cute, they are not small, so they are abandoned.

Don't let those charity fat cats shape your perception of where help is
needed. THINK first! And everyone cannot fight the same battle, we have to
diversify and fight different battles. So if you see someone doing nothing,
then ask him to do something. If you see people already helping in one way,
don't try to make them do what you are already doing, otherwise all these
other problems will get ignored.

~~~
mattjaynes
You may notice that this letter is not to a private citizen working with their
own resources - it's to one of the wealthiest individuals leading one of the
wealthiest companies in the world. A company that is not primarily owned by
him, but by investors all over the world. This is about using Google - a
multi-national giant funded by the investments of others to take a large risk
alienating users to help a cause that already has wealthy and vocal advocates.
Big risk with other people's resources and little potential upside for those
people - doesn't seem like a great idea.

~~~
maxklein
Today you help gay people, tommorow you help aids. Not mutually exclusive, one
does not prevent the other. One step at a time, and try for real change.

Look at Bill Gates - they open this "charity" and then invites all his friends
to save on their taxes by donating money in there. Utter bullcrap. Charities
are the new Tax Havens. And they just hit people like you with propaganda on
what needs to be done. It's all about:

Aids, Cancer, Malaria, Darfur, Earthquake in Sichuan, Tsunami, Pandas, Eagles,
Dolphins, Whales, Cats & Dogs, Zimbabwe.

The media topics are almost always the same, but are you telling me you really
think that the bulk of the worlds suffering is in any of those topics? Are
Dolphins more worthy than Hyenas?

Charity is a big-industry, and they use marketing techniques to get money from
people. And in marketing, you need to get a clear brand - Darfur is a brand,
Aids is a brand, Starving Children are a brand. They don't run billboards with
real and unsexy problems in the world.

I spent a lot of time in Africa and in China, and the people I really respect
are very small - I met this American couple who have been running a haven for
monkeys in the border of Cameroun for the last 20 years. They make a real
difference - they have put everything they have into that project, and they
have saved so many animals. But these large charities will collect millions
and do nothing there! I've met doctors who go to villages and treat the poor
people there for free. Those are REAL heroes! They touch disgusting wounds and
look at wretched people without flinching. They are people to look up to,
people to admire.

Not cigar smoking men sitting in offices in New York and meeting with
advertising agencies on how best to create a fundraiser for the new batch of
teenage stars.

I would just ignore these people if I could, but when I see them influencing
otherwise intelligent people, it really pisses me off.

THINK! If people are asking you for money, don't believe everything they tell
you!

~~~
cellis
_Aids, Cancer, Malaria, Darfur, Earthquake in Sichuan, Tsunami, Pandas,
Eagles, Dolphins, Whales, Cats & Dogs, Zimbabwe._

Don't be so quick to trivialize cancer and aids. I assure you: if you ever
have to see someone close to you suffer and ultimately die of one of those
nasty diseases, the problem of getting a marriage license for gay people will
pale in comparison.

Sometimes the media serves a good purpose. Not all the time, but sometimes. I
personally think that cancer and aids, darfur (last i checked something like
400,000 people, mostly innocent, were massacred), are much weightier issues,
and therefore deserve the bulk of media attention.

This is not to discredit the honorable work of people working on relatively
small societal problems such as gay marriage, but in most of the above
problems, the core argument is that _lives are being lost_. Think about that.

~~~
maxklein
Darfur is utter nonsense. Remember Sierra Leone? Liberia? I saw the videos
coming out of those countries, and yes, that place was a war - a REAL war.
Remember the Hutu Tutsi thing? Another real massacre. There are pictures all
over the net.

But Darfur is just wierd. In this age of Cameras, Camera People, Live
streaming, how come 400,000 people have died, and there are no videos of
actual combat? Darfur is the strangest "war" I've ever heard of - it seems to
be a theoretical war. I've never met the people running from there, I've never
seen the videos of the actual war, I've never seen real photographic evidence
of any massacres.

People want to constantly hear about wars in Africa. But that age has suddenly
ended. All the wars in Africa have ended, what's just left is just local
clashes and conflicts between ethnic groups, and various organisations who
have a vested interest in there being conflicts in Africa push up these
topics. Do some real research, you'll see how wierd the Darfur war comes
across compared to Sierra Leone or Liberia. Also, research the role of China
in the region.

Cancer sucks, but cancer has been there since the beginning of time. People
get it, people die. The only reason so much focus is given on it is that it is
the one disease that being rich has no effect on. So the rich people have
vested interest in getting rid of cancer before other diseases like Malaria.

Aids is of course a problem, but seriously, remember 10 years ago? 1998? The
news about Aids was the same panic as right now. But the thing is this - for
an exponentially growing disease, with drugs that are ensuring that the people
infected stay alive longer, should it not have been more devastating than it
turned out?

The Aids projection seem to be staying at roughly the same number. I'm not
saying it's not there, I'm just saying that it's not an explosive epidemic.

~~~
cellis
In this age of Cameras, Camera People, Live streaming, how come 400,000 people
have died, and there are no videos of actual combat?

Perhaps if you did more research you would actually find that its kind of hard
to _get videos of actual combat_. Even if you could get said footage,how easy
do you think it is to publish stuff like this when there is a suppressive
government? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And i'm not arguing about whether or not these are problems. I'm saying that
they are bigger problems than the one posted.

~~~
maxklein
Then how come there is so much footage of Liberia and Sierra Leone? And Sudan
is not a supressive government, it's a failed state where the central
government is weak and cannot control the country.

~~~
lemonysnicket
Mark,

Have you heard of the phrase, _stop while you're ahead._

I followed your rebuttal essentially stating that one should not lose sight of
small problems for the larger ones, but your derivative spiel about charities
and about Darfur is incoherent babble.

Seriously.

Darfur was a non-issue in the US/ world-media until perhaps 2006, and even
now, most Americans (and perhaps Germans as well?) don't know much about
Darfur, don't care, and most importantly to your argument, they don't donate
time or money to the issue. So what charities exactly are benefitting by
distributing the 'propaganda' about the 'war' in Darfur.

It's not war, it's genocide.

Are you one of those who also didn't believe Holocaust Germany happened? Not
enough evidence for you?

Stick to a logical argument backed up by either logic and data, or please do
not argue here again. I'm tired of seeing your pointless rants where you spew
this ridiculous, utter, nonsense.

~~~
maxklein
Ridiculous, utter, nonsense? And what other pointless rants of mine are you
talking about? If you want to make a point, then make a point based off my
argument, not by descending into personal name calling.

What other pointless rants are you talking about?

(And by the way, I've been several times in the general conflict zone area.
What are your info sources that make you so sure I am wrong?)

------
makecheck
Google is helping people to see that these decisions have far-reaching
effects. Google is pretty confident that the vast majority of people like its
products. So now you have to ask yourself: is it wise to cast a vote that
would insult a large percentage of the people responsible for making the
products you love so much?

~~~
astine
I would argue that they are more dependant on us than we are on them.

------
gm
Ok Google... Keep it up and stand up to China... You got people's attention,
now get governments' attention...

------
jdelsman
Get rid of "marriage", and this whole mess would be a moot point. :) But,
anyway, go Google!

~~~
silencio
$deity forbid gay people have the same rights as married couples without
calling it a marriage. I have a feeling some people would still be offended
like their own personal marriages would be under attack even if you removed
all trace of "marriage" for gay couples.

Don't forget that couple that got offended at the removal of "bride" and
"groom" on their wedding license:
<http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html>

