Comments on: Google opposes anti-gay marriage measure

Search giant decides to take a public stand against Proposition 8, which is on the November ballot in California.

[technewsjunkie]

Marry an adolescent too? Why would that be far fetched using the same reasoning?

It's a "fundamental Right" to "Marry someone", anyone, you love.

[right_to_think97]

2 of my very best friends are not what you would call "straight." I love both of them to death and would be extremely hurt were anything to happen to them. With saying that, I do not believe that they should be able to get married. Though to partake in that sin is their choice (and it is a sin, not a lifestyle), I have to wonder why it is that big of a deal for them to be married. I know of many "people" who live together, and they don't need it to be legal for them to be happy. They consider themselves married already. What's a paper of proof to them? Nothing. The bigger problem is if we do pass the proposition what will be the next step of freedom they will want? Will they want children, thus exposing them to a "life-style" considered by most to be morally sick and against God's laws? Imagine if you were 12 and someone was making fun of you for having 2 mommy's or daddy's. I've personally seen what it does to kids. And there is no way of shielding them or preparing them for it. To deal with this problem one must look past the issue of so-called love, and look forward into the future. If we let this pass, how will it affect you 5 years from now? 10? 20? Think.

[sfspurs]

Fill in the blank below with any other minority.

If there were a constitutional amendment eliminating the rights of _____ , would we be ok with that?

[right_to_think97]

The rights of who? Are you talking about race, color, religion, ect.? They choose to be who they are. They were not born that way, as in the case of someone who is black or asian or whatever. And the rights of religion, which we can choose, are in black and white on our constitution. Where are their rights on it? Which words do you have to twist or add to assure them their right to marriage? By the way, I am only countering your comment to show it's a tad bit easy to argue against. Let's say we fill the void with child molesters. Would you want to eliminate their rights to do what they think is ok to do? Your logic is just a little faulty, but it could be that I didn't understand what you meant. I would like to hear a reply to this just to see if I'm on the same page as you.

[KendallCo]

It amazes me that many of the people post on here supporting Google speak of morality and equality. If Google wants to make that their motto, then impress me by coming out in support of the Pro-Life movement. That would shock and surprise me and gain my respect. Not this drek. There is so much more in the areas of morality and equality that supports Pro-Life then will ever be on the side of gay marriage.

[right_to_think97]

Thank you for having some common sense. It would certainly gain back some of the respect I had for them too.

[dadbee]

I doubt that all Google employees and shareholders share Sergey's social or political views. He has the right to express any belief as a citizen, but attaching the corporate name to political or social issues seems unwise for both Google and a democratic society.

[sfspurs]

The Christian right has so abused its influence that most people are sick and tired of the oppression and its complete disregard for the rights of others.

[t8]

Google shouldn't have done that. Up until this point, I actually trusted Google. Now I am not so sure.

Google should remain neutral if they wish all people to use their service.

Taking any side in a debate, with their power to disseminate information is a dangerous thing.

I wonder what Google will be like 10 years from now.

[Michichael]

Have fun on Yahoo. :)

[Shenzhov]

I'll bet Steve Ballmer is dancing in the street tonight over this statement by Google.
Personally I could care less one way or the other, but there are people that have strong feelings about this and I'm sure a lot of browser default search engines will get changed to Microsoft Live over this stance by Google.

[treester13]

Wow, you'd think CNET people were smarter and more compassionate than this.

What it comes down to is basic US vs. THEM mentality... It's easier to hate others because it allows us not to look at how ugly we are or how our own lives are lacking. If we attack or blame others, we don't have to focus on ourselves.

What does allowing gays to marry take away from YOUR happiness? Does it take anything at all away from how you see God in YOUR life or how you see YOUR spouse? Does it really? How is someone else's happiness destroy your own? Logically, I just don't see it. If it's a sin, why not leave it to God when judgment comes? When did YOU become God - with all the right and power to judge others? If you're so powerful, why not just smite the gays and be rid of all of them?

And seriously with the necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality comments? It's like two adults who want to declare their love for each other before their friends, family and God, and suddenly, we make a connection, however preposterous, to non-consenting sociopathic behavior. You've got to do better than that. It's like saying if we keep allowing people to eat beef, then soon we'll allow people to eat other people. Yeah, pretty ridiculous.

As for a socio-cultural construct such as marriage to affect Darwinian evolution, I'm just at awe. Why worry about gay marriage if in the future, evolution will wipe out homosexuals? Maybe let the gays have their little marriage experiment now but because of evolutionary pressures, they'll go the way of the dodo. But evolution has clearly not weeded out homosexuals in animals nor in humans so perhaps it's not so much Darwinism but "intelligent design" (or old-school term creationism) that has allowed homosexuality to exist. Perhaps you should have a talk about that with God.

Don't get me wrong, I totally believe in a good God, not a hateful, exclusionary one. I don't believe in creationism because God gave us science and reason, and the intelligence to understand the former and practice the latter. And then there's the bible... Again, love God... but the bible is a second-hand document - basically hearsay, written not by God. Now if it was directly written from the hand of God, I'm all in. But it's not so there's a slight possibility that it's biased.

So why not focus on your own happiness and personal relationship with your creator and not so much on others. Let God decide what to do with those who commit sin. Who knows, it may just be those who choose to hate and exclude. Google is right. They remain true to their belief in that Google must do no evil. And that includes not hating others.

[Penguinisto]

Actually, I believe the moral dilemma arises from the government sanction of what is regarded (in Judeo-Christian and Muslim circles) as a grave sin.

To be honest, the book of Leviticus has more to say about the evils of pork than about the evils of homosexuality. That said, Jewish food laws (among other things, such as the overly-strict Sabbath laws) were relaxed vis-a-vis the New Testament - homosexuality was not. Jews and Muslims still recognize the more strict versions found in the Torah and Qur'an. Seeing a government allow what is considered to be a grave sin to be sanctioned is a bit of an affront, and it seems to such folks that gays getting married is a bit of a mockery to them.

I know, I know... "too bad", and etc. But you wanted to know, and that's the usual answer that I hear when I ask.

[kibeom]

You're absolutely righteous Google!

[sfspurs]

Go Google!

[Understarsidream]

I have to laugh at anyone who uses the bible to say anything against gay marriage.... cuz ya know.. the bible supports slavery. Really. It's in there.

Also, the same people against gay marriage are the same people who were (or still are) against interracial marriage as being "unchristian". Don't forget, 45 years ago interracial marriage was also against the law.

[right_to_think97]

Now I know that I am not 45. In fact, I'm not even half of it, but I was always for interracial marriage. If you are going to accuse people of ACTUAL hate crimes then get your facts straight. I am not for the union of people of the same gender because it is a sin. Like it or not you can't just say it isn't and it changes. That's not how it works. I know plenty of people who are not Christians who say that it is wrong. What do you say to them? Can't throw the Bible in their face cause they don't believe in it. And if I were you I would do some research on what the Bible says on slavery. I can tell through your ignorant comment that you don't even read the Bible so who are you to accuse it for what it says when you don't even truly know what it is talking about. Stop taking things out of context and think about what you say (or write in this matter) before you say it. Not trying to "attack" you, just inform you that you are incorrect in your statement

[eltoro2827]

and your point is?

[Pynky01]

I guess we could vote with our dollars and not support these folks...of all the crap we have goin on an google takes a stand on marriage for same sex folks...what about the war google...remember irag and that other arm pit of the world...u support the parasites and the worms ...thanx google...lets raise your taxes to pay for the AIDS your support generates...can we get an amen...

[fsclconsv]

I believe allowing gays to marry would serve to decrease AIDs, as it would encourage monogamy. Please check your facts, rather than letting your fears and homophobia rule. Guess these boards don't change anyone's mind...

[Kwasiowusu]

Is this the same Google that was complicent in the supression of free speech in China, and helped the Chinese goverment to spy on, and arrest Chinese citizens that tried to express their rights to sree speech?
Googel wrong on free speech in China, wrong on gay marriage in America.

[cmillsap]

Someday, when all of the ancient, poor, and irrelevant rednecks and bigots are dead, we will live in a world where the words of Thomas Jefferson finally ring true, that "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" . Congratulations to Google. I have regained my respect for you.

[right_to_think97]

What if it makes someone happy to butcher up little kids after abusing them in ways that would make any moral person shudder? Should the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS cover that too? What if someone likes to beat up the elderly, or toss babies around like a football? Think about what you are saying. Seriously, if that is the way your mind works then I can only hope the bigots and rednecks aren't the only who'll die soon.

[Michichael]

Think: Your argument is flawed because whereas gay marriage doesn't harm anyone in any physical manner, yours does. Apples and Oranges. And for the love of literacy, please take a philosophy course.

[Kwasiowusu]

cmillsap : ""all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"

Nice try.
Persuit of happiness is NOT equal to the freedom for everybody to do as they like. If your "persuit of happiness" invloves having sex in plain view of everyone at Time Square, you will be arrested , trried and jailed. And if your persuit of happiness involves having sex with little boys (like hurndreds of gay priests have been doing), you will be jailed for a very long time. No freedoms are abosloute in ANY country on this planet.

[cmillsap]

However, people must be free to pursue happiness in as much as their actions do not harm anyone else. It is clear to me that gays who want to get married harm no one. Therefore, unlike pedophiles or public exhibitionists, who do harm others, gays need to be free to live their lives without the mean spirited and hateful condemnations and oppressions of small minded bigots.

[faust]

By all means let us put the rights of all minorities to the will of the popular vote.

Blacks having the right to vote - bye
Bring back slavery - free labor for all
Jews back to the ghettos - in 3,2,1
Women voting - back in the kitchen beoytch

The majority of Americans watch American Idol, enough proof the public isn't to be trusted with anything of importance.

[mattumanu]

The Majority of americans what? Do you not understand basic math? The rating show that only a tiny sliver of americans actually watch American Idol.

Stop trying to take the moral high road in a culture that freely allows children to be abused, abandoned, and killed with impunity, where the poor are kept perpetually poor in run down neighborhoods and fed illicit drugs to keep the stoned and ingnorant, where any foreigner can enter the country, steal your identity and get job without even swearing allegence to this country or even reporting their very existence.

And by the way, Gays aren't being discriminated against with regards to marriage. They are free to marry a woman just like I am. Giving them the right to marry members of the same sex gives them a special privaledge that I do not have. And besides which, this gives any group with a special grievance the right to plead for special privaledges. I'm sure you don't want that.

[rashinal]

For all you quoting the bible as some sort of "proof" , to rationalize your hate and fear and intolerance ..

Get REAL ..
First, God made gay people the same way he made you !
Second, the bible as authority ??

I mean C?MON , IT?S A BOOK It?s a bunch of stories.. It was written by HUMANS not GOD.
And it?s a RELIGIOUS text.
You may not know this, but the CONSTITUTION very specifically BANS a religious test for LAWS in this country. END of story.
Your little religious book-of-stories has no place in either the LAW or the definition of marriage and should not even be part of the discussion.
Now if you in your religion, you don?t approve of it, that?s fine.. no one will force you to participate. But, you have NO right to oppress others and force them to abide by YOUR religious beliefs. The LAW MAY NOT discriminate. The LAW must be blind; may not take into account to whom it applies.. it applies equally to everyone.
Two people enter into a legal contract .. that's it. You don't get to say who, wether it's a question of what sex any more than what color or how tall or what religion or how rich.

Now let?s talk about some reality here :
the bible was NOT written by Jesus ,
Jesus did NOT speak english
English wasn?t even around !
Jesus spoke Aramaic, which is completely different than any modern language. There aren?t word-for-word translations for most ancient languages, so dwelling on and single word is RIDICULOUS.
AND...
For the new testament, the STORIES were passed down from person to person, from language to language, from area to area, whose people had different meanings for words and different words altogether for HUNDREDS of years BEFORE it was written down.
Jesus did NOT carry a stenographer.
The old testament was done so for many hundreds before that ! And from many other areas and many other languages, mostly by illiterate people !
The version to which you refer, is only ONE translation of MANY versions.
And, it was conceived, translated, and edited by the Church of England in the 17th Century.. one thousand six hundred years AFTER Jesus lived.
The version was specifically published to reflect VERY strict and specific views of the PURITANS of the day. Earlier versions did not reflect their ?values? so they CHANGED it to more fit THEIR view.
But it?s irrelevant because the text had been rewritten hundreds of times previously; edited, translated from one language to another, remade to fit the views of whoever was in power or however they wanted to control the masses.
We can?t even agree on meanings of words in our own language, written down 200 years ago and you?re trying to prove a point by the semantics of stories from 2000 years ago that weren?t written down, weren?t told in this language (or anything remotely close) and have been changed, edited, retranslated and ?interpreted? and re-interpreted countless times over !

Talk about EXTREMISTS !
Keep your religion OUT of politics.

[Kwasiowusu]

faust : "By all means let us put the rights of all minorities to the will of the popular vote.
Blacks having the right to vote - bye
Bring back slavery - free labor for all"

What a clueless statment that is.
Hey, for your information, millions of the same Americans you are trashing, fought and over 600,000 Americans DIED in the American Civil War just so slavery could be abolished. Not only did Americans vote to abolish slavery, Americans backed that up by giving up the most precious thing thay had: Their LIVES!

faust : "The majority of Americans watch American Idol, enough proof the public isn't to be trusted with anything of importance. "

The most stupid statment made on this thread so far. Only a gay marriage loving pinhead will come up with such stupid statement. For your information, the average American has a heck of a lot more common sense than the vermin that run Google. After all, its the same Google that backed the Chinese goverment in their supression of free speech in China, and assisted the Chinese goverment to arrest free speech proponents in China, just so Google can make a fast back.

[treester13]

Civil war casualties were caused to keep the Union, not because of some noble cause to abolish slavery. While slavery was the trigger, the South's economy was based on slavery while the North had moved toward a more industrial economy. The North could have abolished slavery and let the South secede. There was no longer a threat of secession. Once Lincoln was elected, there was no going back for the South. One option, and it always is an option no matter how hard to take, is to let them go. They chose not to. It's easy to idealize something but not really see the real forces that are at work. Take the war in Iraq for instance. Many prefer to see the noble nature of the cause -- spreading freedom, stopping weapons of mass destruction and heroic deaths of American soldiers. The truth is far more complicated.

If the sanctity of marriage should be preserved, at such a staggeringly successful divorce rate, then perhaps, for the gays, you could consider a differently named but legally equivalent type of union. I'm sure you have no problems with love between two consenting adults. So if something was called a Gay Union, for instance, instead of "marriage", would that be acceptable? Of course this would have all the legalities that married couples have, such as inheritance, tax breaks, medical benefits (including being able to visit a loved one in intensive care), etc. After all, gays pay taxes, have families, fight wars. They just don't seem to get secular tax breaks and hospital visiting rights like other legally sanctioned unions.

With all things being equal, except for the use of the word "marriage" and the religious connotations, would you be amenable to such a thing called a Gay Union? Or is there another excuse you have to be against full equality for couples, no matter the gender of the individuals? Remember, religion and the word marriage have been removed from the definition of a Gay Union. This is now strictly a matter of legal equality afforded to all people. Is this something you would support?

[faust]

Go repeat 10th grade history class, the civil war was about keeping the union together not about slavery.

So talking about dumbest post of the year on news.com.....