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

[Mrg02d]

Originally Posted by melendezest

OK. Let me further explain my original process:

I use the biological attributes of human sexual behavior to then frame the "moral" issue of same gender marriage. Since "right" and "wrong" are highly subjective, I was attempting to mitigate those variables through the use of "primary bio-function" of sexual activity.

If the reproductive organs are for, well, reproduction, then any behavior that impedes it is deviance. Homosexual relationships are in direct contravention to human reproduction. Period. It is impossible for two same gender humans to reproduce (although technology has allowed us to bypass this, it still is deviating from the "intended" system design). So, we can use this as a basis for the moral implications of said behavior. Should a homosexual relationship be allowed to adopt children (a civil issue)? You are choosing to not engage in sexual behavior that facilitates reproduction! This is a consequence of deviance. But now we are saying, well, some hetero couples cannot have children (due to a system malfunction, not a behavioral choice, impetus, or whatever), so it should be okay for anyone to get a kid (even sexual deviants).

So now we have to determine which sexual deviants can and should be allowed to have children.

In other words, the sexual deviance leads to moral issues which lead to civil issues, etc, etc.

I feel that the focus of this issue has been backwards: were addressing civil issues, by arguing about it's morals, without looking at the root of the issue: it is not normal (from a design standpoint, not from a popularity standpoint) for a person to be sexually attracted to someone of the same gender. This is sexual deviance. Aside from hermaphrodites, this is a psychological issue (in the brain). I believe we do not fully understand why it occurs. But today, we're not even trying to. Which I find has been having a cascading effect into the moral and civil issues.

----------



You pee when you have orgasms? Time to see a doctor...

Well said!

----------

Originally Posted by yg17

Indeed, and gay couples are going to have gay sex whether or not they can get gay married, so why not just let them get married and give them all of the legal and financial benefits of marriage?

Why give them legal and financial benefits?

Id be for letting them get married by the state and have no benefits other than being declared married. That will decide what they REALLY want.

[melendezest]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

Holy crap I can't even remember how many different things I've stuck my penis in over the years. I'm screwed. Lock me up and throw away the key.

I think that as long as it's not someone under the age of 18 or an animal, you should be good, in the eyes of the law, at least (depending on the state, I guess).

So to the point, some sexual deviance may be considered acceptable, some not.

The question I've been posing all along is, in the absence of an absolute "this is right" and "this is wrong", how do we decide which is which, and who makes that decision?

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by melendezest

OK. Let me further explain my original process:

I use the biological attributes of human sexual behavior to then frame the "moral" issue of same gender marriage. Since "right" and "wrong" are highly subjective, I was attempting to mitigate those variables through the use of "primary bio-function" of sexual activity.

If the reproductive organs are for, well, reproduction, then any behavior that impedes it is deviance. Homosexual relationships are in direct contravention to human reproduction. Period. It is impossible for two same gender humans to reproduce (although technology has allowed us to bypass this, it still is deviating from the "intended" system design). So, we can use this as a basis for the moral implications of said behavior. Should a homosexual relationship be allowed to adopt children (a civil issue)? You are choosing to not engage in sexual behavior that facilitates reproduction! This is a consequence of deviance. But now we are saying, well, some hetero couples cannot have children (due to a system malfunction, not a behavioral choice, impetus, or whatever), so it should be okay for anyone to get a kid (even sexual deviants).

So now we have to determine which sexual deviants can and should be allowed to have children.

In other words, the sexual deviance leads to moral issues which lead to civil issues, etc, etc.

I feel that the focus of this issue has been backwards: were addressing civil issues, by arguing about it's morals, without looking at the root of the issue: it is not normal (from a design standpoint, not from a popularity standpoint) for a person to be sexually attracted to someone of the same gender. This is sexual deviance. Aside from hermaphrodites, this is a psychological issue (in the brain). I believe we do not fully understand why it occurs. But today, we're not even trying to. Which I find has been having a cascading effect into the moral and civil issues.

I wonder how you think "we" should determine which "sexual deviants" should be allowed to have children.

I also wonder if you can source any stuides (not facilitated by a hate group) that show the children of homosexuals are any less adjusted than the children of heterosexuals.

[BobVB]

Originally Posted by melendezest

If the reproductive organs are for, well, reproduction, then any behavior that impedes it is deviance.

Ah I see your mistake, the sex organs are for sex... and other things. You are assuming the answer you want to get to where you want to go.

Sex is, in part, for releasing endorphins and oxytocin to enhance socialization and pair bonding. This happens regardless of the capacity to breed. And considering non-breeding sex is the vast majority of the activity, obviously breeding is not its 'purpose' or even what it is 'intended' for. Both these words used in exclusion just indicate an argument that is assuming an answer.

Civil Marriage is just legal registration of a spousal familial relationship. This can exist regardless of the citizen's sexes, their ability to breed. If the state is going to license legal spousal relationships for some citizens they need to do so for all. Either of age, unrelated, not currently licensed citizens are contractable in this manner or they are not, their sex just shouldn't be an issue.

All citizens should be able to license with a spouse and a spouse can be either a husband or a wife.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Mrg02d

Why give them legal and financial benefits?

Id be for letting them get married by the state and have no benefits other than being declared married. That will decide what they REALLY want.

Over 1,000 posts and you still don't get what the issue is. Please share with us what they REALLY want?

----------

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I wonder how you think "we" should determine which "sexual deviants" should be allowed to have children.

I also wonder if you can source any stuides (not facilitated by a hate group) that show the children of homosexuals are any less adjusted than the children of heterosexuals.

Purely anecdotal but the kids I know who were raised by gay and hippy parents are some of the smartest, most well rounded, non-judgmental and happiest kids I know. So if there are any gay hippies out there, they'd probably make the best parents ever.

[melendezest]

Originally Posted by doelcm82

It also follows that each time the male sex organ becomes tumescent, its owner must find a female sex organ to insert it into. Any other action is a perversion of the purpose of the erection.

Not a perversion...that is not what I'm talking about. I am simply looking for an unbiased starting point for making biased (ie. moral and civil) decisions.

What biological function, other than sex, does an erection serve? Impotence is a medical condition that impedes sexual activity. An erection's purpose is to facilitate insertion, as related to sexual activity. Is that the only time we become tumescent? No. Do we know why we become tumescent in every case? No. But we do know that in a healthy, normal male sexual arousal (psychological) and physical stimulation results in tumescence.

It also follows that each time the male sex organ becomes tumescent, its owner must find a female sex organ to insert it into.

You said that, not me. I guess people's sexual appetites vary greatly in intensity...We're really off the rails here...

[CalWizrd]

... and here I thought the gun threads got pretty far afield!

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by melendezest

You pee when you have orgasms? Time to see a doctor...

I don't know, I'm not the one saying: The male member expels sperm for the purpose of reproduction and implying that the only purpose of genitalia are reproductive

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Mrg02d

You cannot seriously think that you are part of some majority and that gay marriage is only banned because our current government is full of right wing Christians making Americas choices based on good, Christian values...could you?

So why else do you think it still isn't accepted?

WASPs that don't have anything more to do in their lives that they have to worry about others' lives. It is these same WASPs that fueled the Great Southern Strategy that caused the shift in political platforms that we have today. Or have you not realized that the Republican party is not the same party as the GOP was under Lincoln or Roosevelt?

BTW. No-one said that the LGBTQ community is part of any majority, just like those of us who are Black never considered themselves part of a majority.

Furthermore, alot of you people all seem to think this is a Christian based issue. Why? Society, all throughout history, hasnt accepted it. Long before Jesus became cool. There are reasons that go much deeper than people's "silly" religions.

You have no idea how wrong you are.

Zeus and Ganymede. Zeus and Callisto. Apollo and Hyacinth. Among others.

All of them Before your monotheistic God ever came into its own religion. And it was ACCEPTED by people here.

BTW, you do know that Zeus was a fornicator and polygamist, right?

Not enough for you? Look at Asia. Africa. The Americas.

All of them years before any Christian religion came into being, and all of the societies involved accepted it.

Second, you need to come to the understanding that you only speak for YOU, and no-one else. You do not hold any office. You are not in any position to speak for others. You can only speak for yourself and no-one else.

Finally, you do know of the 1st Amendment, right? That establishes that not only are we free to practice any religion we (the people of the US) choose, including no religion at all, but that there is no official established religion in this country. That means that ALL religions have equal say here. Your religion carries the same amount of weight as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism, Paganism, Wicca, Druid.. bloody hell, even Jedi.

So your religion, your God, and your beliefs in that religion only speak for you, not everyone else in this country. Please be sure to remember that.

BL.

[melendezest]

Originally Posted by BobVB

Ah I see your mistake, the sex organs are for sex... and other things. You are assuming the answer you want to get to where you want to go.

Sex is, in part, for releasing endorphins and oxytocin to enhance socialization and pair bonding. This happens regardless of the capacity to breed. And considering non-breeding sex is the vast majority of the activity, obviously breeding is not its 'purpose' or even what it is 'intended' for. Both these words used in exclusion just indicate an argument that is assuming an answer.

Civil Marriage is just legal registration of a spousal familial relationship. This can exist regardless of the citizen's sexes, their ability to breed. If the state is going to license legal spousal relationships for some citizens they need to do so for all. Either of age, unrelated, not currently licensed citizens are contractable in this manner or they are not, their sex just shouldn't be an issue.

All citizens should be able to license with a spouse and a spouse can be either a husband or a wife.

Well, now we can debate why releasing endorphins and oxytocin to enhance socialization and pair bonding occurs during sexual activity. The male orgasm produces sperm which (coincidentally!) is compatible with a woman's orgasm which contracts the vaginal muscles to dip the cervix into the male ejaculate, facilitating (coincidentally!) the movement of sperm towards the female's released egg, which (coincidentally!) can create another human being. Hmmm. All this happens just so we can socialize? I think you are doing the same thing as you accuse me of: assuming the answer you want to get to where you want to go. The socializing and pair bonding part facilitates the development and protection of the child you just have a lot of fun making. Because in order for humans to survive (the ultimate goal of successful reproduction), we need parents.

If the state is going to license legal spousal relationships for some citizens they need to do so for all. Either of age, unrelated, not currently licensed citizens are contractable in this manner or they are not, their sex just shouldn't be an issue.

This is where we disagree. I feel we should pick and choose, just like we do for every situation.

[Mrg02d]

Originally Posted by bradl

WASPs that don't have anything more to do in their lives that they have to worry about others' lives. It is these same WASPs that fueled the Great Southern Strategy that caused the shift in political platforms that we have today. Or have you not realized that the Republican party is not the same party as the GOP was under Lincoln or Roosevelt?

BTW. No-one said that the LGBTQ community is part of any majority, just like those of us who are Black never considered themselves part of a majority.



You have no idea how wrong you are.

Zeus and Ganymede. Zeus and Callisto. Apollo and Hyacinth. Among others.

All of them Before your monotheistic God ever came into its own religion. And it was ACCEPTED by people here.

BTW, you do know that Zeus was a fornicator and polygamist, right?

Not enough for you? Look at Asia. Africa. The Americas.

All of them years before any Christian religion came into being, and all of the societies involved accepted it.

Second, you need to come to the understanding that you only speak for YOU, and no-one else. You do not hold any office. You are not in any position to speak for others. You can only speak for yourself and no-one else.

Finally, you do know of the 1st Amendment, right? That establishes that not only are we free to practice any religion we (the people of the US) choose, including no religion at all, but that there is no official established religion in this country. That means that ALL religions have equal say here. Your religion carries the same amount of weight as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism, Paganism, Wicca, Druid.. bloody hell, even Jedi.

So your religion, your God, and your beliefs in that religion only speak for you, not everyone else in this country. Please be sure to remember that.

BL.

Whoa,lets get something straight real fast....



















U mad bro?

[melendezest]

Originally Posted by Oletros

I don't know, I'm not the one saying: The male member expels sperm for the purpose of reproduction and implying that the only purpose of genitalia are reproductive

Read again. I said primary, not unique. The male member is an insertion device that serves dual purpose, obviously. But if its primary purpose was excretory, it need not be in the shape it is. We could just have a hole, like females do. The penis and vagina are complimentary devices. Plug + socket = kids (in healthy, normal systems). The fun facilitates this, it is not the reason for it.

Would we really go through the trouble of having kids if sex hurt??

[BobVB]

Originally Posted by melendezest

Well, now we can debate why releasing endorphins and oxytocin to enhance socialization and pair bonding occurs during sexual activity.

And again the mistake you are making is that you think there is a 'why' when in reality there is just 'it does'.

Of course its absolutely great that it does the things you mentioned, but it also reinforces pair-bonding without breeding, it makes people who have done it more socially friendly with other people in general and it leads to better speech making for about a week!

All of these things are just as much 'why' it happens. You dearly want it to only be 'for' one thing when it reality it does many many things.

You will never make any headway with your rationalization because few think the 'reason' for sex is reproduction - that is just one of its many things sex leads to in the human species.

[melendezest]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I wonder how you think "we" should determine which "sexual deviants" should be allowed to have children.

I also wonder if you can source any stuides (not facilitated by a hate group) that show the children of homosexuals are any less adjusted than the children of heterosexuals.

I wonder how you think "we" should determine which "sexual deviants" should be allowed to have children.

Who establishes laws in our country?

I also wonder if you can source any stuides (not facilitated by a hate group) that show the children of homosexuals are any less adjusted than the children of heterosexuals.

Let me clarify something: I do not hate homosexuals. I disagree with homosexual behavior being considered "normal". Big difference.

Now, as far as your question, it is a good one. I have not looked for any studies, pro or against. But given the fact that homosexuality, in our country at least, has been considered taboo and secret until recently, I would think there isn't enough data to support a conclusive determination.

However, I feel such a study would potentially put children in harm's way, making it unethical. I mean, it's a 50/50 chance as far as we know; it could have no effect, or have a severe effect. Are we willing to (again, potentially) screw up some kids to find out?

If the issue of homosexuality is a psychological disorder (we really don't know at this point one way or another), should we give kids to these individuals. What psychological impact will that have on the children?

I'm not saying whether or not it'll be bad or good. My point is that we are not asking these questions.

[melendezest]

Originally Posted by BobVB

And again the mistake you are making is that you think there is a 'why' when in reality there is just 'it does'.

Of course its absolutely great that it does the things you mentioned, but it also reinforces pair-bonding without breeding, it makes people who have done it more socially friendly with other people in general and it leads to better speech making for about a week!

All of these things are just as much 'why' it happens. You dearly want it to only be 'for' one thing when it reality it does many many things.

You will never make any headway with your rationalization because few think the 'reason' for sex is reproduction - that is just one of its many things sex leads to in the human species.

Well, then it stands to reason that all meaning is debatable. There are no truths.

You will never make any headway with your rationalization because few think the 'reason' for sex is reproduction

I didn't say that. I said primary. We are sentient. We can choose to do things for fun. You are correct that most people have sex for fun. But this does not mean that the organs are designed for fun, with reproduction as a secondary or tertiary purpose.

We are mammals. Most mammals, if not all, have sex. Why?

I'm simply trying to use biology and physiology to explain the why. But yes, it can be debated to death. And yes, I know I will not make headway with some people, nor do I care to. I was simply presenting my idea as to why I am in the side of the issue that I'm in, and how I got there. It'll make sense to some; to others (clearly) it will seem irrational, even bigoted and hateful. I can accept that, and move on.

Thanks for the great discussion, though. Really fun and interesting (on an Apple site, no less).

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by melendezest

If the issue of homosexuality is a psychological disorder (we really don't know at this point one way or another), should we give kids to these individuals. What psychological impact will that have on the children?

I'm not saying whether or not it'll be bad or good. My point is that we are not asking these questions.

Well, we can start by asking me.

I don't have any type of psychological disorder. Further, I have 5 year old twins who are healthy, intelligent, and totally loved (maybe a llittle spoiled). The only psychological impact I fear they will face is having to grow up in a world with people like you. People who are so wrapped up in the past, and completely ignorant of the world we live in that they would throw around the term "sexual deviant".

You really need to start educating yourself. There have been studies done - on both the psychological disorder and on the kids of gays/lesbians.

And nobody had to "give" me kids. I carried and gave birth to them.

[doelcm82]

Originally Posted by melendezest

If the issue of homosexuality is a psychological disorder (we really don't know at this point one way or another), should we give kids to these individuals. What psychological impact will that have on the children?

I'm not saying whether or not it'll be bad or good. My point is that we are not asking these questions.

The organizations that are set up to determine what is a psychological disorder and what is not have determined that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. So we do know one way or another. We also have many children raised by gay parents who have grown to adulthood, and are as well-adjusted as their peers.

If you're trying to be 100 percent safe from any possibility of harm, then you have to agree that we really don't know 100 percent that you are not a potential child molester. Therefore in the interests of children, you should not be allowed to be near any, let alone have children of your own. You may not think you pose a danger to children, but we don't have any way of knowing for absolutely sure, so...sorry: no kids for you! Your own rules say we can't allow it.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Well, we can start by asking me.

I don't have any type of psychological disorder. Further, I have 5 year old twins who are healthy, intelligent, and totally loved (maybe a llittle spoiled). The only psychological impact I fear they will face is having to grow up in a world with people like you. People who are so wrapped up in the past, and completely ignorant of the world we live in that they would throw around the term "sexual deviant".

You really need to start educating yourself. There have been studies done - on both the psychological disorder and on the kids of gays/lesbians.

And nobody had to "give" me kids. I carried and gave birth to them.

Slow claps of totally agreement

[BobVB]

Originally Posted by melendezest

I didn't say that. I said primary. We are sentient. We can choose to do things for fun. You are correct that most people have sex for fun. But this does not mean that the organs are designed for fun, with reproduction as a secondary or tertiary purpose.

First they weren't designed, they evolved and evolution is all about taking something that did one thing and making it do more.

But this is odd, now if you are saying something has more than one purpose how can just having a 'primary' make any of the other purposes 'deviant'? That's just sophistry. Be like saying because you think that your skin is primarily for protection that its immune system function is 'deviant' which is hardly any standard usage of the word in fact it means 'deviant' is wonderful.

We are mammals. Most mammals, if not all, have sex. Why?

Our closest relatives have it for fun, all the time anytime they can and sometimes the females have babies as a result. So I would say they have it for the same reason humans have it - for fun and its just grand that it sometimes, rarely, it results in a baby mammal.

But babies most certainly isn't the 'why' of their having it.

[laurim]

Originally Posted by inscrewtable

Well just to give one example. If you look around you can see a trend to infantilise women by making what would have been a minority fetish, ie removing all hair from the pubic region, into mainstream acceptance. When Playboy, a mainstream establishment magazine, that has interviewed the President of the USA, start depicting women with entirely denuded pubes, then... Huston, we have a problem. How does this come about. What man would want his woman to look like a pre pubescent girl?

There needs to be strong Male role models in families where there are girls so the girls know that a man does not have to be a weak POS.

I think men like "denuded" pubes for the same reason they like women to shave their pits and legs, it's tidier. Hirsute women just aren't in fashion right now. Also, they won't get hair in their teeth . I know I prefer a man to shave down there and it's not because I like pre-pubescent boys.

[mdelvecchio]

Originally Posted by Speedy2

How so?
The majority can make any law as long as it's not unconstitutional, and the minority has to abide by these laws.

not in a republic, nummer. thats the very difference between a republic and a democracy. USA is a republic.

----------

Originally Posted by BornAgainMac

It does make me sad that man is moving away for God's word in our laws even among believers.

except that there is zero proof of what god's word is, were it real. there is only the scribblings of ancient men, not gods.

----------

Originally Posted by Chris Blount

So since we are breaking this barrier, I can marry my dog now right?

dogs are not granted any constitutional protections and are in fact considered property.

try harder.

----------

Originally Posted by iMacFarlane

I'll reply. As soon as I read the above sentence in your post, I lost all desire to have a meaningful discussion with you.

oh nos! call da police!

[flatfoot99]

Apple stock again tanking... Tim Cook made some worrisome comments today. Stop worrying about gay rights and concentrate on Apple Tim! I love you as much as a heterosexual can, but for gods sake save the gay stuff for after hours!

[GermanyChris]

41 pages and 1022 posts in two days..

[Schmitty11]

Originally Posted by MrDc2

No. God does. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[COLOR="#808080"]

Thoughts?

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by MrDc2

No. God does. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I see. Where do you stand on the rest of Levitcus?