Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Other Companies Push Forward in Fight for Marriage Equality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you blinded by your own hate?
The posters signature, only points out how jesus would be seen through modern eyes.
You get tax benefits for children whether you're married or not. Whether you're straight or gay. Black or white. Etc.. Etc..
News flash: gay people want and can have children also. Why wouldn't everyone be in favor of stability and child bearing for ALL people and not just those whom they can relate to?
If you say you are in favor of "promoting stability and child bearing" and you are against "same sex marriage" you're a liar. The two are not mutually exclusive.
This comment makes me laugh a little, I'm not being mean or anything, but people complain when there's a story about Foxconn that makes Apple look bad and point out that many other companies use them as well. This story is how a huge number of companies all came out in support of gay marriage and we're all "way to go Apple!." IDK, it just struck me as funny. I'm proud now that I drink Coke.
----------
I'm asking why does the government need to have anything to do with marriage and you still haven't answered that question. I could care less about who stups who or who wants to commit and love who. But apparently the government did and does. Why? Why can't you just choose who you want you benefits to go to like you do on an insurance policy?
Once you answer why the government is so interested in maintaining the institution of marriage then you can argue why it should be only a man and a woman, or also man and a man or a woman and a woman. And of course depending on why marriage exists you could then argue for polygamous unions.
If this were true, then there would be legislation to ensure that all who get married sign a contract that they must produce children in order for the marriage to be legal. Then would come the legislation putting an age limit on marriage, because, you know, people lose the ability to have children as they get older.
There are plenty of opposite sex couples who get married and don't have children. There are also of same sex couples who get married (or not married depending on where they live) and DO have children.
That isn't even close to the actual debate.... And I would hardly call it a debate, as it's a poor definition even for heterosexual marriage.
Yeah, that's not how laws work. Just because a classification is somewhat over-inclusive, the law is not invalidated. We have a lot of rules based in the age of majority, although some 17-year-olds are mature enough to engage in adult activity and some 18-year-olds are not. It's very easy for the state to achieve its goals by drawing certain distinct lines before recognizing a marriage. Gender and consanguinity are two of them. It is impossible to draw distinct lines for things like infertility, age at which someone can no longer have children, etc. But I do think that a marriage can be annulled for impotence (which makes it as though the marriage never happened) is convincing evidence that marriage is centered on the fact that the state cares about whether the couple can have children. Why else should the government be involved in a personal relationship?
I imagine it has to a lot with logistics. Children, property, ownership, benefits, etc...
Many of the suits brought against laws prohibiting same sex marriage have involved spousal benefits and property ownership after the death of a loved one.
----------
I understand what you're saying, but to say that the main reason why people are against same sex marriage is because of children is either ignorance, disingenuous, or just plain denial.
And also, it's worth pointing out again that gay people can have children...
I'm not sure Muhammed met all four stated criteria. Do you happen to know? I think it would take some research to answer his question, as most Westerners know more about the Jesus canon than the Muhammed canon. And I'm not sure why you feel it is incumbent on the guy with the signature to figure this out? I would think people here are capable of doing their own research.
Yes, gay people can have children, but two men or two women cannot have a child that is a product of their relationship. Therefore, the state doesn't have much at stake in their relationship.
I don't know how you know what motivates people, but I personally think that arguments need to be evaluated based on their own merits, not on the real or imagined motivations of the proponent. Marriage has developed over centuries, and so it is difficult to ascertain the motivations of the people who influenced the rule over the centuries. But three major criteria have been in place for centuries: age, sex, and consanguinity (the shorthand for remembering this is that young gay cousins can't get married). These are all relevant to the ability to have children. Don't be surprised when the people who are alarmed by a change in this are also the people who hold most strongly to traditional sexual norms.
I don't know how you know what motivates people, but I personally think that arguments need to be evaluated based on their own merits, not on the real or imagined motivations of the proponent. Marriage has developed over centuries, and so it is difficult to ascertain the motivations of the people who influenced the rule over the centuries. But three major criteria have been in place for centuries: age, sex, and consanguinity (the shorthand for remembering this is that young gay cousins can't get married). These are all relevant to the ability to have children. Don't be surprised when the people who are alarmed by a change in this are also the people who hold most strongly to traditional sexual norms.
What are you talking about? His question was would he say the same about Islam, the loving and peaceful religion.
----------
So you won't answer him?
The government needs to be involved in marriage because it is a extremely pervasive legal contract between people. The government has created a standardized contract, because without one there would be chaos-- every transaction that involves the rights of one spouse with regard to other would have to be settled by pulling out the specific contract for that relationship and having multiple parties interpret the relevant clause, each time. So, government has created a standard agreement, and called it "marriage". Simple as that.
----------
And his question makes no sense as stated, as the original statement said nothing about Christianity, just Jesus. So, why would an analogous answer about Islam make sense-- Islam is not an analogue of Jesus, but perhaps Muhammed is. The original statement made four comments about Jesus, so the only possible sensible interpretation of the rather poorly stated question is: "would you make the same statement about Muhammed?" And the only answer should be: if the same criteria hold for Muhammed, yes.
So, what are YOU talking about? It seems you are just trying to be hostile, not fair or logical. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder, and you should work it out.
When my girlfriend and I had children, you can't imagine the hoops we had to go through for her to adopt them (I carried them). Social worker visits, proof of income, proof of stable jobs, credit checks, etc...
The state sure exhibited a "stake" in my relationship then. And they certainly didn't have any problem cashing our checks. Yet, here we are in Texas 8 years later, and the government is still fighting against my family and others like it.
In terms of motivation, why are you assuming I'm imagining other people's motivations? After all of the debates, court cases, protests, speeches, etc.. I don't have to assume. It's coming out of their mouths. I've also met with my Senators regarding (one of whom is Ted Cruz) this and they've also made their thoughts on the subject perfectly clear.
But the government is involved in a much more pervasive way than other contracts. There are certain benefits only available to married couples that cannot be contracted for. That makes marriage much more than a standard contract.
Really, so what? Plenty of married people adopt, or have children using donor sperm or eggs. Doesn't the state smile on this? I know gay people who have done the same.
It seems to me, in the area of children, that the primary interest of the state is in encouraging parent to raise children, not birth them. There are plenty of babies being born without the state butting in.
The government has a legitimate interest in children, which is why adoptions must be approved. I'm sure you and your girlfriend love your children, but you had to go through a very deliberate process to conceive then and confer a legal relationship with them. When a man and a woman have a relationship, the process is much less deliberate. As opposed to adoption, where we substitute legal relationships for biological ones, natural processes for childbirth have no immediate legal implications. Marriage is the only way for the state to help foster a situation so that if a man and a woman have a child, intentionally or not, there is some stability. The state can assure stability in other situations through the adoption process.
I can't answer a question that makes zero sense.
I find it odd that an Atheist who has a strong contempt for religion can actually make a complimentary comment towards Jesus and still get attacked for it.
It makes perfect sense. He asked if you would say the same about Islam. Not sure why it's so hard to understand. Or, maybe you should stop deflecting and being an apologist. Love the "atheist" argument btw. An atheist walks into a bar...
----------
Exactly!
You're my favorite liberal on this board. Not sure why, but you are.
Sure. There are a few benefits, but most of them have to do with the sharing of property. For example, certain types of insurance or pensions have to be granted to spouses in certain ways. Without these regulations, an individual would negotiate for the benefit on behalf of him (her) self and his/her spouse, and everyone would end up with a different result. In other words, chaos. So the government has simplified this to create a package of contract terms called "marriage."
Did you have some example that you think doesn't fall into this category? Certainly the tax code makes a distinction, but I would hardly call that a "benefit." It's actually a penalty.
I don't disagree...
That said, if the main purpose of marriage was to ensure stability and child rearing, why wouldn't the government want to recognize my relationship? If they want to promote families, I've handed them one on a silver platter. And, yet, they still are fighting against it. Why?
----------
You're my favorite liberal on this board. Not sure why, but you are.
Awesomeness has no political affiliation.
It doesn't make sense, because he said something very specific about the historical Jesus. And the response was "would you say the same thing about Islam"? Who is this Mr. Islam?
At least, you could be add value by restating a sensible question, instead of the useless and hostile "you didn't answer the question."
I said nothing about Christianity. My signature says nothing about Christianity. So I can't say the same about Islam because I never said anything about Christianity.
Meanwhile...
![sm-g925f_014_r-front-dynamic_gold_platinum_770x433_acf_cropped-770x433.jpg]()
Dimensions 142 mm (5.6 in) H
70.1 mm (2.76 in) W
7.0 mm (0.28 in) D
Operating system Android 5.0 Lollipop
CPU Quad-core 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 & Quad-core 2.1 GHz Cortex-A57
Memory 3GB of LPDDR4 RAM
Storage 32GB, 64GB or 128GB of UFS 2.0 flash memory
Battery 2600 mAh
Data inputs
List[show]
Display 5.1 inch, 1440 x 2560 pixel, aspect ratio 9:16
Rear camera 16 MP, 3456 x 4608 pixels, optical image stabilization, autofocus, LED flash, Real-time HDR
Front camera 5 MP, 1080p@30fps, dual video call, Real-time HDR
And the iPhone can't keep a Safari tab in memory more than 30 seconds...No...No, loss of focus at all...
Dimensions 142 mm (5.6 in) H
70.1 mm (2.76 in) W
7.0 mm (0.28 in) D
Operating system Android 5.0 Lollipop
CPU Quad-core 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 & Quad-core 2.1 GHz Cortex-A57
Memory 3GB of LPDDR4 RAM
Storage 32GB, 64GB or 128GB of UFS 2.0 flash memory
Battery 2600 mAh
Data inputs
List[show]
Display 5.1 inch, 1440 x 2560 pixel, aspect ratio 9:16
Rear camera 16 MP, 3456 x 4608 pixels, optical image stabilization, autofocus, LED flash, Real-time HDR
Front camera 5 MP, 1080p@30fps, dual video call, Real-time HDR
And the iPhone can't keep a Safari tab in memory more than 30 seconds...No...No, loss of focus at all...
Why not just move to a state that supports your alternative lifestyle. You're a prime example of not wanting to change things but to force people to accept your lifestyle. I'm sure you'll disagree and that's just fine with me.
Let me provide a perfect example. I was working for a company and I was moved to another location that needed a strong manager. The problem was the location was in the ghetto and being white I was not welcomed there at all. My life was threatened within the first few hours for being somewhere I didn't belong. So I updated my resume and found a better job at a different company in a few weeks.
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Islam.