Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Google Goes Into Politics

Google decides to speak about government policy and it isn't pretty.
They are backing the pro-homosexual lobby against prop 8 in California. Stupid to do so as well - there will be a backlash. Here is what the head of Google says:
As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay -- we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.

However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology
Why is this stupid? Because we will now be considering moving our blog off of blogger (among others as well) - a Google company. Because they are disenfranchising a huge (read - most) of their users. Because there is no "fundamental right" to marry whomever you "love". Because google logic apparently only works on computers and not in social policy.

Why does the Catholic Church oppose this? Because the family is the basic unit of society and a husband and wife are the best option for raising children in a loving and stable environment. When this is taken away, a child's chances for poverty, criminal behavior, etc. go up. It is also a relationship that takes sexuality out of the proper context it is intended for - husband and wife.

One of the purposes of sex is babies. Simple thought, but this is denied by our culture today in some areas. But, nature reveals this truth to us. Sex = babies. This is why our government needs to protect this - because society needs more productive citizens and marriage brings them into being.

Ultimately there is a confusion over "rights". The children have a right to a mother and father. But, there is no "right" to marry whomever one wishes to marry. This is a social construct, that according to nature, we don't have the right to invent.

13 comments:

Harald said...

Ignoring any social aspects, or whether you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, Proposition 8 is bad because it sets the dangerous precedent of allowing an amendment to remove a /right/.

While the content may or may not be objectionable depending on which side of the gay marriage fence you fall, the WORDING is dangerous because of the precedent it sets. Passing Proposition 8 opens the door to other bills that remove other rights - like, say, free speech.

Sola said...

I hate to disagree, but i have to; i don't think they'll be enfranchising most, of, half, or even a quarter of their users. Just the ones who have an opinion strong enough to affect which free services they use.

Just my two cents - also free. :)

Marcel said...

Harald - There is no right to remove. Same-sex couples have no intrinsic right to marry. If they do, then marriage is re-defined into whatever we make it, not what it truly is.

Tremaine Lea said...

Mary, if you think you and others who share your opinion leaving a service Google provides to you at their expense is going to hurt them, you're mistaken.

Aside from the fact I happen to think they're right, Google has the analytical power and information resources to have determined in advance that you and yours are a small and acceptable loss from the corporate bottom line.

Marcel said...

I think you guys are missing the crux of the argument here.

The boy with the green tambourine said...

1. Personal freedom is good, and should be encroached on only with good reason.

2. Therefore, those who wish to make same-sex marriage illegal have to put forward a very good case.

3. The only case they have put forward to date is “My invisible friend doesn’t like it”.

4. This is not a reasonable argument, and can (indeed, should) be ignored.

5. Until a good argument to ban same-sex marriage is put forward, it should be permitted. Personal freedoms should not be abridged out of simple prejudice.

6. Good on Google!

Timothy Green.

Marcel said...

TBWTGT - You must not of actually read my post before your reply.

I don't think I mentioned my invisible friend once during the argument and you still haven't told me where this "right to privacy" (which is nowhere in the Constitution) comes from or how it plays into this issue and I have laid out a cultural argument that you haven't touched.

Bachelors said...

You say: "Because they are disenfranchising a huge (read - most) of their users."

Disenfranchise means "remove the right to vote." Can you please explain to me how Google is removing people's right to vote? Thanks.

Marcel said...

That isn't the only definition of the word.
Check it out - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise

druid said...

Excellent, thought-provoking post:
Just because a couple loves one another doesn't mean they should be allowed to marry. Since the primary point of marriage is procreation, we should extend proposition 8 to similarly deny marriage rights to infertile couples.

How long do you think society should tolerate a childless heterosexual couple before their marriage rights are revoked? Can we annul their marriage once the woman hits menopause, or should we be more proactive?

Sven said...

Heterosexuals have no "intrinsic" right to marry either. Either marriage is a state institution, in which case it comes from the constitution, or it is a religious institution, in which case the state shouldn't be involved at all. The fact that the only people that oppose gay marriage are religious should tell you something about whether their objections are secular or religious. Religious objections can never be allowed to take away a right granted by a secular institution.

Marcel said...

Tell me, what is "love"?

Is it a feeling or is it more? I have literally never had anyone disagree with this definition of love - "wanting what is best for another regardless of the cost to myself.". If you agree with this definition, then you would never support any kind of sexual relationship outside of the marriage between a man and a woman. Why?

Because taking a risk with someone emotionally, relationally, physically, etc. is never loving.

The whole purpose of sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman is selfishness, not love. It isn't about sacrificing your own self-interests for another. As for the straw man argument about sterile couples - it isn't because of the nature of the persons that they can't have children, as it is with two men or two women. The difference with an infertile couple is that they do not intend to be infertile and are still open to the creation of life. Therefore, they are not intentionally taking one aspect out of the sexual act. Apples and oranges argument there.

Any intrinsic right necessarily arise from the natural law - a law by which I have been arguing the entire time (it differs, in some respects, to divine law). So, your argumentation that it is a religious argument is invalid. Also, the cultural ramifications of homosexual marriage are far-reaching. The point of legal recognition of marriage is to help society by propping up marriage as the way society will survive - because the future of society, in children, comes out of marriage. This isn't the case between homosexuals and therefore it is a re-definition of marriage that is a detriment, not a help, to society.

Imeabasi said...

Can someone explain to me what right Homosexual couples are fighting for? I understand they are fighting for the word "married" but what rights are they not recieving as domestic couple or civil union?