Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Among 60 Companies to File Statement with U.S. Supreme Court Backing Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fatalbert

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2013
398
0
bradl said:
1. Corporations can't marry based on their person status.

If Corporations are People, Therefore people can't marry based on their person status.

So shouldn't every married couple in this country be getting divorces, or have their marriages immediately nullified, per Citizens United?

You can't have it both ways.

BL.
Click to expand...

Uh what? First of all, what's with the random capitalization? Secondly, not sure if you misunderstood, but this is what I mean and what Wikipedia says: Corporations do not have all the rights of people. Their personhoods only allow them to sue and be sued as people. The rights given as corporations do not include the right to marry.

Also, corporations everywhere in any nation and at any time ARE "people". End of story. To argue with that would be equivalent to arguing that green is a color. It would be you vs the dictionary.
 
swissmann

swissmann

macrumors 6502a
Sep 17, 2003
797
82
The Utah Alps
Zorn said:
Because what may be popular is not always right. Look at the Jim Crow era years ago. Those laws were all popular and passed by the people, but they were abhorrent and it was left to the judiciary to strike them down. What if the people of a state by popular vote said anyone with a first name that starts with J should be fined $200 every time they are pulled over? Would you be okay with that because the people voted, and it passed?
Click to expand...

Your correct it isn't always right but neither is the decision that a group of judges comes up with always right. I'd rather not pay the fine but I'd be much more OK with it if the majority made it a law instead of a handful of judges especially if the majority had made a law for no fine and the judges overruled it.
 
bradl

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,923
17,399
Fatalbert said:
Uh what? First of all, what's with the random capitalization? Secondly, not sure if you misunderstood, but this is what I mean and what Wikipedia says: Corporations do not have all the rights of people. Their personhoods only allow them to sue and be sued as people. The rights given as corporations do not include the right to marry.
Click to expand...

So they are partly a person... like a fetus?

What I am pointing out here is that you can't term something as a person without bestowing all rights on said person, per our Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution.

Defining them as part of a person and how they can be used as a person violates the Declaration, the Preamble, and the 14th Amendment. You can't have that both ways and have them escape certain provisions of law, while others and actual people are subject to all provisions.

That is the flaw in the logic of Citizens United, and your reactions to my posts have proven exactly that. Thank you.

BL.
 
F

Fatalbert

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2013
398
0
bradl said:
So they are partly a person... like a fetus?

What I am pointing out here is that you can't term something as a person without bestowing all rights on said person, per our Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution.

Defining them as part of a person and how they can be used as a person violates the Declaration, the Preamble, and the 14th Amendment. You can't have that both ways and have them escape certain provisions of law, while others and actual people are subject to all provisions.

That is the flaw in the logic of Citizens United, and your reactions to my posts have proven exactly that. Thank you.

BL.
Click to expand...

I never said that a corporation is a person. It's a "person". Look it up the dictionary; look it up on Wikipedia. All it means in the US is that they can use the courts like a person, nothing more. It acts as a single entity. What's wrong with that?

The fact that it's turned into some Republican vs Democrat debate is ridiculous. Unless someone argues that a certain person in a corporation should be sued for its actions rather than the corporation as a whole...
 
Last edited:
Plutonius

Plutonius

macrumors G3
Feb 22, 2003
9,033
8,404
New Hampshire, USA
sbrhwkp3 said:
Marriage shouldn't be a government issue at all in the first place, anyways. :apple:
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. There are two different meanings for marriage which is why it is such an issue. The government considers marriage secular in nature and basically a contract between two people. The church and those that marry for religious reasons, consider marriage a contract between each other and God.

The government should rename for everyone what they are referring as marriage to "civil contract" (or something similar). They can then give the same rights / privileges / penalties to everyone and there will be few complaints. It can then be a true contract where the couple can stipulate any terms before hand. For people that want to get married, they can still get married but it's for religious reasons only.

A small change of syntax for everyone and the problem will go away.
 
F

Fatalbert

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2013
398
0
Plutonius said:
I agree 100%. There are two different meanings for marriage which is why it is such an issue. The government considers marriage secular in nature and basically a contract between two people. The church and those that marry for religious reasons, consider marriage a contract between each other and God.

The government should rename for everyone what they are referring as marriage to "civil contract" (or something similar). They can then give the same rights / privileges / penalties to everyone and there will be few complaints. It can then be a true contract where the couple can stipulate any terms before hand. For people that want to get married, they can still get married but it's for religious reasons only.

A small change of syntax for everyone and the problem will go away.
Click to expand...

The government should just give privileges/penalties based on the ownership of children. I don't think the government should support or oppose gay marriage, but right now, it has to do one or the other.
 
S

Speedy2

macrumors 65816
Nov 19, 2008
1,163
254
swissmann said:
How so? In the way that was posted one step earlier in the thread. Please refer back to the message I was replying to for your answer.
Click to expand...

I don't see where you presented a case in which a minority made a law to rule over a majority.

If courts strike down a popular vote because it was unconstitutional, the minority doesn't get to "rule" over a majority. It was simply prevented that a majority rules over a minority in an unconstitutional way.

This is how all proper democracies work.
 
F

Fatalbert

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2013
398
0
Speedy2 said:
I don't see where you presented a case in which a minority made a law to rule over a majority.

If courts strike down a popular vote because it was unconstitutional, the minority doesn't get to "rule" over a majority. It was simply prevented that a majority rules over a minority in an unconstitutional way.

This is how all proper democracies work.
Click to expand...

The minority definitely rules over the majority in some sense in the USA. It's a republic, not a democracy.
 
Northgrove

Northgrove

macrumors 65816
Aug 3, 2010
1,149
437
I'm for the separation of the state and church, and therefore also for gay marriage.

Marriages only between man and woman is a relic from the past, related to the Bible rather than modern understanding of human sexual orientation.
 
Shrink

Shrink

macrumors G3
Feb 26, 2011
8,929
1,727
New England, USA
Daveoc64 said:
No idea.



No idea.

We don't know the answer to these things.

You can't have it both ways (not a bisexual joke).

Either:

a) It's something that just *happens* (no matter what age, or what the biological reasons for it happening)

b) It's a choice

If it's a) then we can only assume that things will continue as they do now - a minority of people will turn out to not be straight. The vast majority of people would continue to procreate as they do now.

If in some bizarre world that suddenly changes, and everyone *becomes* gay, then I don't really see what your point is. I can't answer that. There's no reason that artificial methods can't work on a large scale. Still assuming it's not a choice, there's not anything we can do to change this scenario.

If it's b) then the question becomes "what makes people choose to be gay?" - clearly it's not marriage.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. While we (those of us involved in the scientific study of human sexuality) don't know the exact amount of variance accounted for by genetic endowment and environmental influence, we do know (at least with men) that gay affectional orientation is no more a choice than heterosexual affectional orientation. I didn't choose to be straight, I "discovered' it.

One might use the analogy of left handedness. We know that a certain percentage of the population is left handed, and expectable variation in later dominance. So, too, is gay affectional orientation...and expected variation (NOT deviation) of affectional orientation.

It is also the case that affectional orientation are very plastic...not necessarily set in stone for life. But that is a very involved discussion for another time.

Suffice it to say that there is an enormous field of scientific study involved in studying the basis of affectional orientation, and although we are far from certain of the "cause" of heterosexuality, or gay affectional preference, we are not totally ignorant on the subject, either
 
Rocketman

Rocketman

macrumors 603
Dec 2, 2001
6,191
1,186
Claremont, The intellectual capitol of the world.
Simple. Just don't call it "marriage", a reserved word. Call it a coupling, a commitment, a same gender commitment.

I have had to stop using the N word even though my grandma used it in a non-attacking way. I objected, but I was overruled. By yet another style of societal PC.

Culture in general is being degraded in our society by secularism, and a lack of ethics, and "situational ethics".

I agree gay is genetic for a % of the population approximating 8%, half of which self describe due to heavy peer pressure.
 
Last edited:
S

Speedy2

macrumors 65816
Nov 19, 2008
1,163
254
swissmann said:
Your correct it isn't always right but neither is the decision that a group of judges comes up with always right. I'd rather not pay the fine but I'd be much more OK with it if the majority made it a law instead of a handful of judges especially if the majority had made a law for no fine and the judges overruled it.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't get to decide how the law is interpreted, that's entirely up to the judiciary branch, with the supreme court as the highest power. The only way to "overturn" a supreme court's decision is to make new laws (or to appoint new judges, but that can take a while ...).
It doesn't matter at all that a court only consists of a few people. We don't live in a society where the mob can rule and ignore court decisions just because they are more in number.
 
U

unobtainium

macrumors 68030
Mar 27, 2011
2,597
3,859
jlasoon said:
How do I benefit from this? Please explain.
Click to expand...

You get to live in a freer and more equal society. You get to know that if your children or a close family member happens to be gay, he or she will have the same rights you do. :rolleyes:
 
C

Coleman2010

macrumors 68000
Oct 9, 2010
1,919
164
NYC
Stella said:
And why would you say that, offering no explanation?

You know that brain damage can have significant effects on people, ignoring the expected results from brain injury ( loss of cognitive ability etc ). A good example is Foreign accent syndrome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_accent_syndrome
Click to expand...
For one being gay is not brain damage! And a man's level of masculinity has nothing to do with sexual preference. You stated a list of stereotypes and tried to turn it into evidence to support your false statement.
 
S

Speedy2

macrumors 65816
Nov 19, 2008
1,163
254
Fatalbert said:
The minority definitely rules over the majority in some sense in the USA. It's a republic, not a democracy.
Click to expand...

[ ] You have fully understood the definition of terms like democracy, republic and representation.

[x] Ah well
 
bradl

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,923
17,399
Rocketman said:
Simple. Just don't call it "marriage", a reserved word. Call it a coupling, a commitment, a same gender commitment.

I have had to stop using the N word even though my grandma use it in a non-attacking way. I objected, but I was overruled. By yet another style of societal PC.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that won't work, unless you'd like to go back to the days of Brown v. Board of Education. Or are you of the disposition that we should be living life how it was pre-1954?

BL.
 
T

thehustleman

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2013
1,123
1
<a rel="nofollow" href="https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=16911467" target="_blank">Originally Posted by flatfoot99</a><br />
My question too... why bother having a vote if it can be overturned?:confused:
Click to expand...
<br />
<br />
1. The vote in CA was bought for starters.<br />
2. Sometimes people are on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...


What was the point of voting if the government wasn't going to do the right thing?
 
U

unobtainium

macrumors 68030
Mar 27, 2011
2,597
3,859
Shrink said:
Not entirely true. While we (those of us involved in the scientific study of human sexuality) don't know the exact amount of variance accounted for by genetic endowment and environmental influence, we do know (at least with men) that gay affectional orientation is no more a choice than heterosexual affectional orientation. I didn't choose to be straight, I "discovered' it.

One might use the analogy of left handedness. We know that a certain percentage of the population is left handed, and expectable variation in later dominance. So, too, is gay affectional orientation...and expected variation (NOT deviation) of affectional orientation.

It is also the case that affectional orientation are very plastic...not necessarily set in stone for life. But that is a very involved discussion for another time.

Suffice it to say that there is an enormous field of scientific study involved in studying the basis of affectional orientation, and although we are far from certain of the "cause" of heterosexuality, or gay affectional preference, we are not totally ignorant on the subject, either
Click to expand...

If anyone is actually interested in the latest research on the epigenetic causes of homosexuality, some of the most recent research can be found on JSTOR. Fascinating stuff: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167
 
Plutonius

Plutonius

macrumors G3
Feb 22, 2003
9,033
8,404
New Hampshire, USA
Fatalbert said:
The government should just give privileges/penalties based on the ownership of children. I don't think the government should support or oppose gay marriage, but right now, it has to do one or the other.
Click to expand...

My point is that the term marriage is religious in nature so the government should not be using it (separation of church and state). The government should rename the term marriage to "civil contract" or something like that for everyone and that it should be considered a secular civil contact between the two people (whatever they agree to). This will also get the government out of the argument.
 
bradl

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,923
17,399
thehustleman said:
What was the point of voting if the government wasn't going to do the right thing?
Click to expand...

Because if you didn't vote, or speak out against it, even if government wasn't going to do the right thing, buy your not voting, you'd be complacent in what government does. That would make you just as wrong as government doing the wrong thing.

BL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom