It makes me wonder how the complainants discovered the rainbow stripe anyway. What were they searching for?
Riayn
· 1 year ago
They were doing research?
But seriously, the viral nature of the internet means as soon as one person starts talking about it it spreads and thus people who would have never known it was there suddenly know and then start objecting that Google is forcing their own personal bias on them.
Andrew Boyd
· 1 year ago
Good article, and thanks for the link on Plurk :)
Good on Google, and screw the rest of 'em. They don't matter.
Cheers, Andrew
Sally
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the great article and for letting us all know about it on Plurk. Hopefully one day we will have the same in Australia!
Jayne
· 1 year ago
I used to p!ss off a lot of anti-gay wankers in our (now defunct) MSN GLBT chatroom by asking them the questions they'd fire at everyone- "OMG! You're straight?! How on earth did your parents cope with that news...or haven't you had the courage of your convictions to come out yet?" "Ya know, God made humans in Her own image so you're blaspheming against Her Master Plan by staying straight and not even making an effort to try to turn gay!" Etc, you get the picture ;)
By the way, I tagged you for a meme Riayn ;)
Mr. HotMess
· 1 year ago
It's probably for gay pride. This is week most locations across the U.S. have their parades and celebrations.
Riayn
· 1 year ago
I should have remembered that it is also Gay Pride as well. I got so caught up in the Californian marriages that I completely forgot.
Happy Gay Pride Week to my US readers!
brooksbayne
· 1 year ago
there's no phobia here. what would we be afraid of? that you'll plot to come redecorate our homes? the old ad hominem of "homophobe" doesn't work around here. for the record, i didn't see anyone abuse duncan or google.
sure, i disagree with gay marriage and i think it's okay for us to disagree. there's also a majority here in the u.s. that doesn't agree with it.
the queer agenda is how i refer to the pc agenda from folks who are similar to the ones that get all huffy over the word "oriental". you know, secular progressives.
however, i think it's sad that the california court set ppl up for a fall. sadness and anger is what a lot of ppl will feel when the constitution of california is amended to define what marriage has always been understood to be in this country - a union between a man and a woman.
i do understand that ppl make their choices and they want to feel accepted after making said choices, but you have to know that not everyone will like your choices. there's 200+ years of judeo-christian worldvew in this country. would you respect any with those deeply held views if they marginalized their beliefs by kicking their morality to the curb simply to satisfy a boisterous pc minority? maybe you're the one who's intolerant of ppl with that worldview. if you wanna rail against the majority in the public square, be prepared to have ppl disagree with you at the very least. i believe some ppl are too thin-skinned to deal with the consequences of their own choices.
any polygamists wanna chime in? they should have a voice in this marriage debate too, right?
Riayn
· 1 year ago
I find it interesting that you are trying to accuse gay people of being intolerant of people who routinely spout lies and encourage hatred of them. Are we supposed to say that it is okay that these people want us killed and that they beat up, rape and sometimes murder people just because they are gay?
Personally, I am not intolerant of anyone who is Christian or any other religion. They are welcome to practise their own faith and hold their own beliefs. I am not asking that if being homosexual is against their religion that they suddenly start holding same-sex marriages in their churches. What I am intolerant of is their spread of hated against GLBT people. What happened to the good old Christian manta of love one another and to love the sinner, not the sin? The hypocrisy that these people display is offensive not only to GLBT people but also other Christians, who despite the fact that homosexuality is not accepted in their religion, they have no issue with treating gay people with respect.
BTW, same-sex marriage is nothing like polygamy. Stick with the debate please. Letting two people regardless of gender marry is not the same as letting people marry multiple partners, or their pets or their furniture.
brooksbayne
· 1 year ago
where did we talk about gays being intolerant of liars and haters? i said i didn't see anyone abuse duncan or google. you lost me there.
your argument about ppl of faith is a bit faulty. marriage, in this country, has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman. so why would you or any other person who doesn't share those beliefs want to force your way into their institution? you're trying to force your way into their institution and they are gonna get mad - naturally. i don't think it's a sign of disrespect to disallow gays traditional marriage when there's nothing traditional about homosexuality in this country.
you're not going to get the religious segment of society to EVER agree to gay marriage. how could they agree? god, according to scripture, calls homosexuality an abomination. by asking that segment to accept what you want, you're asking them to deny their beliefs - ain't gonna happen, so get used to that. but i agree with your point about violence towards queers - it shouldn't happen - unless they beat their spouses.
ah, you took the bait about polygamy. thanks! according to whose morals, or worldview, is polygamy bad? the majority? yours? why can't ppl who love one another be denied their expressions of love? why are you so intolerant toward polygamists? elaborate about how polygamy is different than homosexuality in relation to traditional conservative views.
Riayn
· 1 year ago
Wolfbayne, if marriage was just a religious ceremony that had no legal ramifications then gays would not try to "force" their way into it. However, because it does have legal ramifications gays deserve to have the same rights as everyone else. Without the legal protection of marriage, gay couples have no rights to property, superannuation or inheritance if their partner dies. Also, they have no rights to make medical decisions on behalf of their partners. Plus non-biological gay parents have no legal rights as far as their children and their medical care is concerned.
BTW, in the 15th century, Churches used to routinely bless the unions of two men or two women in the same way that they did the union of a man and a woman. This was practiced in England up to the early 19th century. The Church didn't used to be so intolerant of homosexuality. But if we are following Leviticus here, why do Christians eat meat with cream sauce when the Bible says that that act is also an abomination? Also why aren't doves no longer sacrificed when a woman gives birth? Interesting how Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible now relate to them and what acts are no longer seen as abominations.
For the record I am not intolerant of polygamy. You can have as many partners as you want as far as I am concerned. But marriage itself has always been between two people. Gay marriage does not change that fact, nor does allowing gay marriage open the way for polygamy to become legal. If polygamist seek to change this law, they will have no objections from me.
brooksbayne
· 1 year ago
regarding the seeking of rights for property, you're assuming that ppl care about the queer lifestyle. if ppl don't care, then you're not gonna get any rights. crazy judges can try and sidestep the will of the ppl and 200+ years of marriage between one man and one woman by judicial fiat, but in the end the ppl will amend their constitutions to make the term marriage ironclad. wait and see what happens this november in california, for example.
again, we aren't talking about england. they still have monarchs don't they?
regarding Christians, they aren't bound by ritual anymore, after the life/death/resurrection of Christ. however, behavior is still looked at as evidence within their testimony. so, doves/meat/any other ritualistic restriction are ignored. but murder, homosexuality, theft, adultery, etc. aren't ignored. that's not them picking and choosing, that's just you not understanding the difference Christ made to the "law".
some modern Jews still keep the law, but many are just Jew-"ish" - kinda like Jews, maybe call themselves Jews, but really aren't Jews, save by birth.
so, polygamists don't have the right to marry? interesting reason for your justification. you state that marriage has always been between two ppl, and if polygamists wanna want to change this, they have to change the law. well, my friend, homosexuals have to do the same thing. because, as has been stated here already, marriage, in this country, has ALWAYS been between two ppl, but those two ppl are one man and one woman.
because secular progressives keep pushing, 41 states now have statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. and 27 states currently have constitutional language defining marriage as such. and more will follow, just watch. you're up against a "moral" majority that rejects your views concerning queers marrying.
maybe you'd get more results pushing for domestic partnerships and not marriage.
it's your blog, so, i'll give ya the last word. enjoyed the chat. peace.
Flashman
· 1 year ago
(He says he's giving us the last word, but my troll-detector says he's still watching this.)
Thankfully people like wolfsbayne are slowly losing the argument. Support for gay rights is a mainstream issue, it's not going away, and more people are coming to realise that (whatever their personal views) the fate of the world does not hang upon how two people choose to arrange their genitalia in regards to one another.
America is perhaps ten years behind the rest of the developed world in its citizens' attitudes. In the long term, gays will end up with the same rights as every other human - note: not extending those rights into new territory such as incest, bestiality, pedophilia etc - and we can devote more effort to fixing the rest of the world's injustices.
snipergirl
· 1 year ago
congratulations fuckwit. First you whine on duncan's blog then you go over to a clearly pro-gay site in order to troll because you're losing over there.
You go on about how people have the right not to have things shoved down their throat yet you harrass and shove your agenda down everyone else's
how old are you again? 15?
brooksbayne
· 1 year ago
lol. you're following me. i was following the topic. for the record it's not just my agenda, it's the "moral" majority's.
america 1 secular progressive 0
Mo
· 1 year ago
Just read snipergirl's comment. It pretty much sums it up for me.
i fuck men
· 1 year ago
i just tried it, it isnt true. once you stop concealing your homophobia you can start to cure it
Riayn
· 1 year ago
The reason why there are no longer the rainbow stripes showing up on queer related search words is that Pride Month is over. It was only up for the month of June.
All Comments
But seriously, the viral nature of the internet means as soon as one person starts talking about it it spreads and thus people who would have never known it was there suddenly know and then start objecting that Google is forcing their own personal bias on them.
Good on Google, and screw the rest of 'em. They don't matter.
Cheers, Andrew
Hopefully one day we will have the same in Australia!
"OMG! You're straight?! How on earth did your parents cope with that news...or haven't you had the courage of your convictions to come out yet?"
"Ya know, God made humans in Her own image so you're blaspheming against Her Master Plan by staying straight and not even making an effort to try to turn gay!"
Etc, you get the picture ;)
By the way, I tagged you for a meme Riayn ;)
Happy Gay Pride Week to my US readers!
sure, i disagree with gay marriage and i think it's okay for us to disagree. there's also a majority here in the u.s. that doesn't agree with it.
the queer agenda is how i refer to the pc agenda from folks who are similar to the ones that get all huffy over the word "oriental". you know, secular progressives.
however, i think it's sad that the california court set ppl up for a fall. sadness and anger is what a lot of ppl will feel when the constitution of california is amended to define what marriage has always been understood to be in this country - a union between a man and a woman.
i do understand that ppl make their choices and they want to feel accepted after making said choices, but you have to know that not everyone will like your choices. there's 200+ years of judeo-christian worldvew in this country. would you respect any with those deeply held views if they marginalized their beliefs by kicking their morality to the curb simply to satisfy a boisterous pc minority? maybe you're the one who's intolerant of ppl with that worldview. if you wanna rail against the majority in the public square, be prepared to have ppl disagree with you at the very least. i believe some ppl are too thin-skinned to deal with the consequences of their own choices.
any polygamists wanna chime in? they should have a voice in this marriage debate too, right?
Personally, I am not intolerant of anyone who is Christian or any other religion. They are welcome to practise their own faith and hold their own beliefs. I am not asking that if being homosexual is against their religion that they suddenly start holding same-sex marriages in their churches. What I am intolerant of is their spread of hated against GLBT people. What happened to the good old Christian manta of love one another and to love the sinner, not the sin? The hypocrisy that these people display is offensive not only to GLBT people but also other Christians, who despite the fact that homosexuality is not accepted in their religion, they have no issue with treating gay people with respect.
BTW, same-sex marriage is nothing like polygamy. Stick with the debate please. Letting two people regardless of gender marry is not the same as letting people marry multiple partners, or their pets or their furniture.
your argument about ppl of faith is a bit faulty. marriage, in this country, has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman. so why would you or any other person who doesn't share those beliefs want to force your way into their institution? you're trying to force your way into their institution and they are gonna get mad - naturally. i don't think it's a sign of disrespect to disallow gays traditional marriage when there's nothing traditional about homosexuality in this country.
you're not going to get the religious segment of society to EVER agree to gay marriage. how could they agree? god, according to scripture, calls homosexuality an abomination. by asking that segment to accept what you want, you're asking them to deny their beliefs - ain't gonna happen, so get used to that. but i agree with your point about violence towards queers - it shouldn't happen - unless they beat their spouses.
ah, you took the bait about polygamy. thanks! according to whose morals, or worldview, is polygamy bad? the majority? yours? why can't ppl who love one another be denied their expressions of love? why are you so intolerant toward polygamists? elaborate about how polygamy is different than homosexuality in relation to traditional conservative views.
BTW, in the 15th century, Churches used to routinely bless the unions of two men or two women in the same way that they did the union of a man and a woman. This was practiced in England up to the early 19th century. The Church didn't used to be so intolerant of homosexuality. But if we are following Leviticus here, why do Christians eat meat with cream sauce when the Bible says that that act is also an abomination? Also why aren't doves no longer sacrificed when a woman gives birth? Interesting how Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible now relate to them and what acts are no longer seen as abominations.
For the record I am not intolerant of polygamy. You can have as many partners as you want as far as I am concerned. But marriage itself has always been between two people. Gay marriage does not change that fact, nor does allowing gay marriage open the way for polygamy to become legal. If polygamist seek to change this law, they will have no objections from me.
again, we aren't talking about england. they still have monarchs don't they?
regarding Christians, they aren't bound by ritual anymore, after the life/death/resurrection of Christ. however, behavior is still looked at as evidence within their testimony. so, doves/meat/any other ritualistic restriction are ignored. but murder, homosexuality, theft, adultery, etc. aren't ignored. that's not them picking and choosing, that's just you not understanding the difference Christ made to the "law".
some modern Jews still keep the law, but many are just Jew-"ish" - kinda like Jews, maybe call themselves Jews, but really aren't Jews, save by birth.
so, polygamists don't have the right to marry? interesting reason for your justification. you state that marriage has always been between two ppl, and if polygamists wanna want to change this, they have to change the law. well, my friend, homosexuals have to do the same thing. because, as has been stated here already, marriage, in this country, has ALWAYS been between two ppl, but those two ppl are one man and one woman.
because secular progressives keep pushing, 41 states now have statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. and 27 states currently have constitutional language defining marriage as such. and more will follow, just watch. you're up against a "moral" majority that rejects your views concerning queers marrying.
maybe you'd get more results pushing for domestic partnerships and not marriage.
it's your blog, so, i'll give ya the last word. enjoyed the chat. peace.
Thankfully people like wolfsbayne are slowly losing the argument. Support for gay rights is a mainstream issue, it's not going away, and more people are coming to realise that (whatever their personal views) the fate of the world does not hang upon how two people choose to arrange their genitalia in regards to one another.
America is perhaps ten years behind the rest of the developed world in its citizens' attitudes. In the long term, gays will end up with the same rights as every other human - note: not extending those rights into new territory such as incest, bestiality, pedophilia etc - and we can devote more effort to fixing the rest of the world's injustices.
You go on about how people have the right not to have things shoved down their throat yet you harrass and shove your agenda down everyone else's
how old are you again? 15?
america 1
secular progressive 0