Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:22 PM   #251
Stella
macrumors 603
 
Stella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coleman2010 View Post
Wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to begin.
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
__________________
Hardware / Software: The right tools for the job - be it Apple or otherwise.

Last edited by Stella; Feb 26, 2013 at 06:28 PM.
Stella is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:24 PM   #252
Fatalbert
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
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.
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.
Fatalbert is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:25 PM   #253
swissmann
macrumors 6502a
 
swissmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Utah Alps
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorn View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Always looking for a faster Mac.
swissmann is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:26 PM   #254
Kar98
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Whatever angers the thumpers and the baggers, I'm for it.
Kar98 is offline   6
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:27 PM   #255
Speedy2
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatalbert View Post
Can you show me where the Constitution defends gay marriage? I'm not denying it, just asking because I've never heard the reasoning.
The question discussed in court is actually if banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Prop 8 was struck down under the 14th amendment.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...Schwarzenegger
Speedy2 is offline   1
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:28 PM   #256
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatalbert View Post
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.
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.
bradl is online now   1
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:33 PM   #257
Fatalbert
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
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.
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 by Fatalbert; Feb 26, 2013 at 06:40 PM.
Fatalbert is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:34 PM   #258
Plutonius
macrumors 68040
 
Plutonius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrhwkp3 View Post
Marriage shouldn't be a government issue at all in the first place, anyways.
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.
Plutonius is offline   4
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:39 PM   #259
Fatalbert
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plutonius View Post
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.
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.
Fatalbert is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:40 PM   #260
Speedy2
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by swissmann View Post
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.
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.
Speedy2 is offline   2
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:41 PM   #261
Fatalbert
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedy2 View Post
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.
The minority definitely rules over the majority in some sense in the USA. It's a republic, not a democracy.
Fatalbert is offline   1
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:44 PM   #262
Northgrove
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
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.
__________________
iPhone 5 rMBP 15" (2012)
Northgrove is offline   3
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:44 PM   #263
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveoc64 View Post
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.
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
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is online now   2
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:45 PM   #264
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
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.
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All R House jobs bills die in D Senate. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.

Last edited by Rocketman; Feb 26, 2013 at 06:52 PM.
Rocketman is offline   2
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:46 PM   #265
Speedy2
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by swissmann View Post
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.
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.
Speedy2 is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:46 PM   #266
unobtainium
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlasoon View Post
How do I benefit from this? Please explain.
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.
__________________
13" Retina MacBook Pro (early 2013); Time Capsule 2TB (2011); iPhone 5 (32GB); Apple TV (3rd gen)
unobtainium is offline   2
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:46 PM   #267
Coleman2010
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella View Post
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
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.
Coleman2010 is offline   3
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:46 PM   #268
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
Simple. Just don't call it "marriage", a reserved word. Call it a coupling, a commitment, a same gender commitment.
Exactly. Make it separate but equal. That always works.
Mac'nCheese is offline   6
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:49 PM   #269
Speedy2
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatalbert View Post
The minority definitely rules over the majority in some sense in the USA. It's a republic, not a democracy.
[ ] You have fully understood the definition of terms like democracy, republic and representation.

[x] Ah well
Speedy2 is offline   4
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:49 PM   #270
komodrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlasoon View Post
How do I benefit from this? Please explain.
if gay marriage wasn't an issue, you wouldn't have to waste time commenting on this. win-win.
komodrone is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:49 PM   #271
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
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.
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.
bradl is online now   3
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:49 PM   #272
thehustleman
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Quote:
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://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?
<br />
<br />
1. The vote in CA was bought for starters.<br />
2. Sometimes people are on the wrong side of history.

What was the point of voting if the government wasn't going to do the right thing?
thehustleman is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:49 PM   #273
unobtainium
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
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
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
__________________
13" Retina MacBook Pro (early 2013); Time Capsule 2TB (2011); iPhone 5 (32GB); Apple TV (3rd gen)
unobtainium is offline   0
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:50 PM   #274
Plutonius
macrumors 68040
 
Plutonius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatalbert View Post
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.
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.
Plutonius is offline   1
Old Feb 26, 2013, 06:50 PM   #275
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehustleman View Post
What was the point of voting if the government wasn't going to do the right thing?
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.
bradl is online now   0

Closed Thread
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC