3 ms·

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:

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_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_... 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.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
paulgb 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.)
dlokshin 14y ago
Laws aside, homosexuality is alive and well in Singapore. There are gay clubs, lady boys at Orchard Towers (government regulated prostitution), and I had a number of gay friends who certainly weren't fearful for their life (never bothered about their sexual preference).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

paulgb 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.)

dlokshin 14y ago

Laws aside, homosexuality is alive and well in Singapore. There are gay clubs, lady boys at Orchard Towers (government regulated prostitution), and I had a number of gay friends who certainly weren't fearful for their life (never bothered about their sexual preference).