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

[inscrewtable]

That when people feel they know everything, it's entertaining to see their reactions when they find out they're wrong.

Oh right I get it now you were expecting me to buy into your implication. I play with a straight bat. It's bad enough that people rarely use words accurately outside of the hard sciences, without having to interpret oblique remarks.

They taught the guys how to do it in my school as well....

Which is rather ironic seeing as it would be far better for the guys to teach the girls when the occasion arises (no pun intended).

However there is a logical flaw in the whole issue of condoms anyway. In my new paradigm, I suggest that condoms are never used. This might throw up a bit of confusion for you but that's what a paradigm shift is. Things are often not what they seem.

 

[steve-p]

Live and let live, I say. In my opinion no-one has any right whatsoever to dictate to others how to live their lives conforming to their own prejudiced world view, provided there is no direct harm to anyone else. It's 2013, not the middle ages. Maybe some people disagree because their faith orders them to, but that's their personal issue, and maybe their conscience might want to have a word about what it really means to live in a modern society where we judge things on merit, not on historical dogma.

 

[darkplanets]

I was quite surprised this morning when I saw the Republican backing.

I personally believe "skewed" sexual orientation is a plethora of genetic and epigenetic modifications that give rise to varying degrees of sexuality based upon the severity and impact of individual changes. It's quite natural, and is observed among hundred of species to boot. Regardless of the cause though, it needs to be done in the name of equality. Hell, I bet many same gender couples would be much better parents than those religious bigots who preach hate and intolerance.

----------

again... please stop comparing gay rights to black rights. Not the same.

But really, how is it different?

In one case we have a population that was legally repressed from equal rights based upon their skin color.

In the other case we have a population that was legally repressed from equal rights based upon their sexuality.

While the rights in question are flopped, there are a large number of benefits for heterosexual couples that aren't available to sexual minorities, just like there was a large number of benefits for whites that weren't available to minorities.

The only big difference is the social stigma -- being gay is more socially accepted than persons of color were at that time and they aren't socially segregated. Both still lack certain rights.

 

[Journojulz]

Change is gradual, its all mostly about the world you are born into.

May take a generation or so depending on the terroir, but generally speaking people have got used to gay being legal.

The same will happen with gay marriage in the next generation.

"Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty- five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
Douglas Adams

 

[AlanFord]

For me, marriage is life community between man and woman only. And cannot accept the marriage between same sex.
Civil partnership which defines some rights oke, i support that. And I am strongly against intolerance to gay people.
But marriage is something saint for me, and it stands for something much more then just a paper.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

For me, marriage is life community between man and woman only. And cannot accept the marriage between same sex.
Civil partnership which defines some rights oke, i support that. And I am strongly against intolerance to gay people.
But marriage is something saint for me, and it stands for something much more then just a paper.

I'm sure a lot of people think marriage is more than a piece of paper but what should gender have to do it. Love (between consenting adults) is love. Its difficult to argue against love and it surprises me that so many people try.

 

[rdowns]

I'm happy to argue the point with anyone who can maintain a deductively logical line of reasoning devoid of ad hominem verbiage.

Same sex marriages are an extension of a sick society whereby people who have no interest in the future welbeing of the current generation of children, particularly young girls, put their own self centred, clueless political BS ahead of anything.

Ooooookay

 

[Akarin]

Well, I still prefer mariage to be a government issue than a religious one.

...and not a corporate one.

 

[throttlemeister]

For me, marriage is life community between man and woman only. And cannot accept the marriage between same sex.

That's a religious concept, which by definition does not belong in law making if you have a constitutional separation of church and state, as the US does.

I am not saying gay couple should be able to marry in church by law because they want to. For most religious people, this would not be acceptable and that is within their freedom of religion. In effect, you would be telling people to denounce their religion to do so. If the church wants to, great, if not, sucks to be gay.

However, gay couple should be able to marry in a civil ceremony and get the same civil and legal rights as well as the benefits currently only available to male/female couples.

 

[blehpunk]

was going to say i was impressed by the responses to this, then i scrolled down

 

[organerito]

I smell so much holiness around this forum. I am overwhelmed by all these holy ones telling other adult what they can or can't do.
Stop dictating other people what to do!
I would never marry another man. However, I would never tell other people who they can marry.

So much holiness!!!

 

[AlanFord]

I'm sure a lot of people think marriage is more than a piece of paper but what should gender have to do it. Love (between consenting adults) is love. Its difficult to argue against love and it surprises me that so many people try.

I am not against love. And as I wrote, have nothing against love between same sex.

That's a religious concept, which by definition does not belong in law making if you have a constitutional separation of church and state, as the US does.

I am not saying gay couple should be able to marry in church by law because they want to. For most religious people, this would not be acceptable and that is within their freedom of religion. In effect, you would be telling people to denounce their religion to do so. If the church wants to, great, if not, sucks to be gay.

However, gay couple should be able to marry in a civil ceremony and get the same civil and legal rights as well as the benefits currently only available to male/female couples.

I am traditional man, and except marriage just between man and a woman.
Even in school which is not a church institution, marriage was determined only between man and woman.
I except new trends that there are homosexual people and they should have some rights but I am still a bit skeptic in terms of marriage and adopting.

 

[thatoneguy82]

Wow. I really tried to read this from the first page to the last page, but when I got to the 11th page it all got repetitive. Anyway, I'm a gay man who's been involved in activism since 2008 online and in person and have heard this same exact argument in here, endlessly. It being thrown in your face in person is a different experience entirely, but still the same regardless. Anyway, all it boils down to is that neither side is relentless in getting their point across. Great thing, however, are the in-betweeners are mostly choosing our side. And, the sympathizers and most notably our "straight allies" who have been there have been great. The tides are turning and I think the blood, sweat, (spit), and tears will have been worth it.

 

[0098386]

I feel sad for you. Who thinks of things like this?

Totally for gay marriage, but there are people out there who believe they're animals. I don't find it hard to believe some people would also want to marry them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therianthropy

----------

Same sex marriages are an extension of a sick society whereby people who have no interest in the future welbeing of the current generation of children, particularly young girls, put their own self centred, clueless political BS ahead of anything.

Well that's not entirely true. You have gay couples who want to adopt children, which to me sounds like they want to support the wellbeing of the current generation of children. It's just gay couples can't physically create the child.

Sounds good to me. More foster parents, adopting parents. That's great.

Also, given how much us straight people are spawning I think it's also useful to have couples who aren't adding to the population.

 

[rdowns]

I except new trends that there are homosexual people and they should have some rights but I am still a bit skeptic in terms of marriage and adopting.

Why are you skeptical? Can we also discuss taking away some of your rights? Not all of them, just some of them like you advocate above.

 

[unplugme71]

Good for Apple. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want. I'm sure the Supreme Court will make the right decision on this.

Marriage shouldn't be a government issue at all in the first place, anyways.

It is if you want the state/tax benefits of being married

 

[gnasher729]

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

Marriage should be between consenting adults. Your dog isn't an adult. It isn't capable of consenting to marriage.

----------

Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place - the entire thing is a religious concept and so having the government say it is or isn't allowed is like having the government approve and disapprove of specific religions (which is explicitly non-constitutional.)

Now that is nonsense. Marriage is about two people joining forces to face life together in a stable relationship instead of separate, which enables them to raise children in a stable relationship. Nothing to do with religion at all.

----------

Everybody has the same rights. Every female has the right to marry a male and vice versa. If you want to shack up with someone of the same sex, fine. But why do you have to call it marriage and why does the government need to recognize it? Should the government recognize polygamy too?

Look at it the other way round. Imagine every male had the right to marry another male, and every female had the right to marry another female. You would now say "if you want to shack up with someone of the opposite sex, fine. But why do you have to call it marriage and why does the government need to recognize it? Should the government recognize polygamy too?"

----------

From a standpoint of freedom of choice I do agree that gay marriage should be legal.

However, I don't agree with publicly traded companies trying to sway politics outside of their purview and making stances that can hurt their sales thus their investors. If this was about software piracy or changes in technology patent regulation it would make sense to take a stance as the outcome can effect business.

Apple has lots of employees, and if the company feels that there are laws that are unfair to its employees, they should speak up. And I think it can only improve their sales.

While I don't think someone should be discriminated against because they are gay, I abhor the "Born that way" argument. Not saying that people aren't born gay, but genetics is not a free pass for behavior. Many criminals have genetic propensities for violence, but we don't condone that. So, please, please use a better argument than "I'm genetically predisposed so it's OK."

You think there is choice involved? If being gay is a choice, then _you_ could decide to fall in love with a man or a woman out of your free will. Can you? I couldn't. The few people who can are _also_ born that way. However, you then make a sneaky strawman argument. You are making the underhanded claim that being gay and being a criminal is the same thing. Very nasty. Are you born that way or are you nasty by choice?

Seems to me one of the purposes of marriage is to foster procreation, and last time I checked its impossible for a man to impregnate another man or a woman another woman. If society doesn't procreate what happens to it?

You're behind the times. One, there are surrogates and adoption. Plenty of gay men raising children even today. Second, there is marriage breakup. Man marries woman, has children, woman dies, man discovers he is gay. Marriage gets the children back to having two parents instead of one. I know a four year old girl in exactly that position, having two parents again instead of one. Third, if your brother or sister dies, you would want to be able to raise their children if there is a need for it. Fourth, woman impregnating woman shouldn't be too difficult if a bit of medical research is done.

On the other hand, I never wanted children. Who the ******* do you think you are to tell me I shouldn't have married the woman I love?

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 two have been unrelated for a long time. For example, the Catholic church doesn't allow you to get remarried after a divorce (actually, they just don't accept that you are divorced in most cases, so another marriage would be bigamy. If you are divorced and your ex dies, they allow you to marry again), but the state has no problem with that. So if the church doesn't allow a divorced woman and a divorced man to get married again, but the state does, why should that be different for two men?

 

[Oletros]

Should the government recognize polygamy too?

If sometimes in the future there is wide support for it, it will be recognized.

 

[AlanFord]

Why are you skeptical? Can we also discuss taking away some of your rights? Not all of them, just some of them like you advocate above.

What my rights? What rights I have when i was born, that gay man didnt have?

Now they wont to marry and adopt children.
As I explained, classic marriage for me church or civil is between man and woman.
Church by religious form, and civil by law for factor. And dont have anything against civil partnership which gives them rights in terms of social security, pensions, alimony, heritage, last name and similar.
But some in terms adoption, or some kind medicine fertilization I am still against, adn thats why i sad some.

 

[Oletros]

But some in terms adoption, or some kind medicine fertilization I am still against, adn thats why i sad some.

Exactly why?

In USA, single people can adopt?

 

[AlanFord]

Exactly why?

In USA, single people can adopt?

Here as well. But imho child should be raised by man and woman. Child needs and mother, and father. With reason reproduction is between these two, not between same sex.

 

[APlotdevice]

Here are a few:

The Jewish people would be scattered worldwide; yet Israel would become a nation again-ref Isa 66:8; Mic 5:3. Occurred May 14, 1948.

There would be weapons that could destroy the world-Mk 13:20; Rev 6:8; Rev 9:18; Zech 14:8,12.

There would be an increase in earthquakes-Mt 24:2,3,7; Mk 13:8; Lk 21:11.

Now compare those to all the quotes from Nostradamus that convienently seem to line up. As well as all the supposedly Biblical predictions that never came to pass.

The fact is when you write such vague predictions, it is then very easy to line them up with just about any event you want.

Found Chariots buried under the Red Sea.

One amateur archeologist claimed to have found chariots. No one has ever been able to verify said claim. Supposedly he was able to retrieve one wheel, yet conveniently no one knows where it went. Furthermore the same archeologist claimed to have found other biblical artifacts and sites, such as Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and the truth place of Jesus's crucifixion. Of course none of these claims could be verified either.

Finding and excavating of Solomon's temple.

Artifacts have been found supporting the idea of a human presence dating to around the time and place that Solomon's Temple supposedly existed. That's it.

They have dug up the ancient city of Jericho and found that it perfectly matches the eyewitness account given in the biblical book of Joshua.

Once again artifacts were found supporting the idea of a human presence dating to around the time and place of the biblical account. Yes evidence of a wall was also found, but the problem is that it dates back to a completely different time period.

Intelligent Design is based in Science.

Bull. Science is based on observation and repeatable results. Science is the willingness to challenge long accepted ideas, with the most respected scientific theories being those that have stood up to scrutiny time and time again. Attempting to fit everything into the context of a book written millennia ago is NOT science.

 

[Zunjine]

There's so much waffle on topics like this.

No - marriage is not a religious issue, it's a civil and legal one. Marriage pre-dates all modern religions and we're talking here about being legally recognised as married, not whether a religious group believes you're married or not. I could start a religion whereby I only recognise marriages between five or more people, that doesn't mean that the state has to recogise those marriages.

No - being able to marry a consenting adult human of the same gender does not mean we should also be able to marry our pets or other non adult, non human, non consenting things.

Also, let's be clear here, siblings and close family members aren't allowed to marry because of the potential for inbreeding and producing severely handicapped children. The real problem here isn't marriage or even sex, it's procreation. I feel that, if we could be sure no children would be produced, marriage between family members would be no problem. But that leads to the whole moral and ethical mess of how we ensure it doesn't happen. I don't think anyone wants to open that can of worms but it is not arbitrary like banning marriage between consenting gay adults. It's a law with a perfectly rational basis.

I'm also entirely fine with polygamy or any other non-traditional family unit people wish to be part of. Who are we to tell people they can't make a family with as many members as they choose? How dare we dictate to others who they can and can't officially share their lives with? Family and society are about love, sharing and cooperation for mutual benefit. As soon as we start picking and choosing based on our own personal preferences and telling minority groups that they can't live as they please even when their choices don't materially impact our lives, it's no longer about love, it's about hate. I've no time for hate.

Marriage is a social institution. Any social institution that bars people based on their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious or political affiliations, age, physical or mental health or any other arbitrary measure, is wrong and must be changed. It wasn't long ago that people would have been shocked and appalled by the idea of whites wanting to marry blacks. We got over that and we will get over this.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Sorry, but that doesn't negate the fact that religion is innately totalitarian and vicious in its commandments. If one were to use it as an excuse for anything moral or ethical, it would be at the very least cognitively dissonant of the user, and in itself not a reason to adhere to any motion said user puts forward. If it has any effect, it's making use of a supposedly inalterable and totalitarian authority.

Again, totally moot and more of an opinion. Looking at the facts that have gone forth by myself and many, you are just wrong.

Another quick example that refutes your claims: Atheism would have a cognitive dissonance.

No one uses religion as an "excuse" for moral or ethical behavior. That shows nothing more that a misinterpretation of religion. We may not even be arguing the same points if that's what you believe.

 

[Dionte]

They will have nothing to say. They will still be against it but their opinion is irrelevant. Just like there are plenty of people today who still oppose interracial marriage despite the fact that it has been legal for nearly 50 years.

I'm jealous of purebred people, ones that look closest to being.