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

[MrDc2]

Proof without a belief? That's rather convenient. In fact it is, as I pointed out in the "do you believe in god" thread, the biggest problem with all religions. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, and others all believe just as strongly in their faith. They all think that they are right and everyone else is wrong. So belief frankly means nothing.

"Life of Pi "

 

[macintoshi]

Because it's ridiculous to try to mix faith and logic. Faith as a way of "knowing" says that one needs to believe without proof. And if one has proof, then it is no longer faith, it is knowledge. Reasoning on the other hand says that only things that can be proven can be claimed to be true. No amount of believing makes things true.

So he can say that he knows all he wants to, but he doesn't know, he only has faith. He can say he has "proofs" (I don't know why you need to pluralize an already plural word) but he can't have proof in terms of something that can be empirically verified, which is what proof means.

So his logic is so fundamentally flawed it doesn't deserve refutation because it is patently flawed on its face. No one has proven or will ever prove that God exists, or that He doesn't exist. That is a premise of ALL religions. I'm not saying God doesn't exist and that people shouldn't have faith that He exists, but God has set the rules up that you need to believe in Him without proof.

So, you're wasting your breath trying to argue logically about God because logic and faith cover different domains.

Yes and what we know have been prooven to us by god, and we have still faith in the unknown, becausr there is more to know, believing in the invisible. He doesn't know is not true, for god has made things infront of us and we have been testimonies of it. The fact also that god has infact a stronger logic in which a man cant overcome nor become nearly as that.Because simply impossible to get same logic as god. See immaginary numbers, nothing is logic here as nothin is really round. So even science fail in many ways, even if they believe, to know, it may surprise them in end, they knew not fully.

 

[MrDc2]

Ignoring any religious definitions of marriage, the government has created a system of rewards for two people who enter into a legal marriage. I couldn't care less of three or more people want to live together and call themselves married. I also couldn't care less if they find a church to marry them. But it isn't fair for more than two people to get the rewards that come from marriage.

Why not?

 

[el-John-o]

And no one is trying to take them away. What people are doing is trying to stop religious institutions from taking away other people's rights.

Marry whoever you want in your church. I couldn't care less. Try to tell me who I can marry civilly and you'll be sorry.

Yeah, we're on the exact same page. That's what I've been saying this entire thread. It just seems everyone thinks that, because I'm a Christian, I MUST not support Gay rights, and so they aren't reading far enough to realize I agree with them!

Like I said, personally, I don't understand why we as Christians can't let the secular world do what they like. Personally, I think Gay rights are also church rights, as not only is it wrong for conservative churches to enforce morality in the secular world, but it's also wrong to claim to speak for ALL Christians, when there is a significant minority of major denominations that affirm gay marriage, they should have the right to legally perform the ceremony of marriage with a same sex couple of that's what they feel is right. OR, refuse to do so if THAT is what they feel is right.

A handful of folks want to demand that churches marry gays, even if they don't support it, and I don't think that's right. For one it's really tricky, as marriage in the church often has prerequisites anyway (like counselling, etc.) and could be denied to a heterosexual couple if the clergyperson has a moral conviction against the marriage (like someone who has been repeatedly divorced and finds no fault in themselves among all of those divorces, or a couple who have only known each other a week). Besides, why would a gay couple want to get married in a church that's only doing it because the government is forcing them to?

Just seems like letting the churches decide for themselves, but allowing it in all 50 states (whether a church wants to, or a justice of the peace, etc.), is the right thing to do. That's me anyway, who knows, maybe I'm wrong; but that's the way I feel about it.

Who's understanding is flawed? Whats been changing over the past 2000 years?

So big money and big business is injecting themselves into politics? I thought most of you left coasters were against this sort of thing.

Quite a bit has changed in 2,000 years. Major theological understandings have changed. God hasn't changed, but our understanding of him has, "us" meaning Christians. You may agree or disagree with this that or the other thing, or disagree with me or disagree with the other guy or whatever; that's fine. But the fact is things have changed over time, sometimes they've changed back to where they were before; but they have changed as we've learned and grown. I wasn't stating an opinion on the matter, just the simple fact that it has, in fact, changed.

 

[elistan]

Can you prove that when I eat an orange it tastes the same to me as when you eat an orange? Or that the orange color I see as orange is the same color you see?

Nope! In fact, I think it's more likely our experiences are different rather than similar. For example, I hate cilantro. It's very bitter to me. My wife loves it though, it tastes fresh and clean to her. Also, she'll call some items blue when they look grey to me. Go figure. I wouldn't be surprised if this quite common amongs humans in general, these differences.

----------

At least you are thinking about it rationally.

Yeah, I think the legal aspects of human interaction should be left up to contract law, which has AFAIK no limitations on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., so long as the people are legally allowed to form any contracts. I think the emotional and religious aspects of human interaction should be left up to the individual participants, but have no bearing on the legal aspects.

 

[macintoshi]

That is an overall minority of Christians. Especially since once the material linage is broken one can no longer be considered Jewish.

But this is really getting off topic. The fact is that beliefs differ radically, and often contradict themselves completely. Not just about the existence of a deity or deities. There are also many different ideas as to what happens after death (if anything at all), the origin and nature of the universe (some believe it has always been), and, most relevant to the topic of this thread, different ideas as to what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Minority? I don't know if you are calling over 50 Million people from the middle east till east and south europe as minority, but i do deny ur statement again. Maternal lineage is not broken. But for the rest nothing against what you said.

 

[inscrewtable]

But it isn't fair for more than two people to get the rewards that come from marriage.

Actually, (and this is the point of my paradigm shifting work) married people are not getting the rewards of being married. This is due to people being unable to be honest, with the one person whom they can be.

Thus allowing the Church to impose their own hypocritical interpretations on what they consider marriage to be. They impose an injunction on thoughts thus not allowing people to come to terms with their thoughts which is the cause of disharmony and waste of benefits in a marriage.

I will be illustrating this with an article I'm currently preparing on the movie Eyes Wide Shut. It is not coincidence that the foolish behaviour in the movie of the married couple is reflected in the real life behaviour of the real life married couple in the movie.

In the film (and in real life) Tom Cruise has not solved the problems, of fear, anger, anxiety, alienation or growth.

 

[swissmann]

Actually, the role of the Supreme Court is not to have the final say, but to determine if a given law conflicts with the Constitution. Granted, as times change the way that the constitution is interpreted has changed, but it's not like they just make a ruling on their personal opinions. They look at the constitution and the law in question and determine if the law violates the constitution. That is why they only take certain cases, they are looking at which cases will clarify what can and can't be done according to the constitution. And yes, this is far superior to simply letting everyone vote on something, because sooner or later you're the minority who gets screwed by the majority.

But what if the supreme court is wrong and rule in an opinionated way or misinterpret what the constitution means in regard to the case? This seems possible. What if this ruling which is wrong makes it so the the majority "gets screwed" by the minority?

I agree that the majority is fallible but I think any reasonable person would also have to concede that the supreme court is also fallible.

If the majority makes the mistake at least the majority of the people under that law are getting what they want. If the court sides with the minority and makes a mistake you have the majority living with a law that most people didn't want.

I'd rather not have a mistake made either way but if a mistake is made shouldn't it represent the majority of the voters instead of the minority?

Do you think that the supreme court is infallible?

 

[TheWatchfulOne]

... ignorant people are dying faster than they are being born. And with them, die their votes.

Considering the results of the last two Presidential elections, I'd say the opposite is true.

 

[likemyorbs]

Just because its uncomfortable for you should not mean that we should deny people the rights to do what they please. I don't see how you could make a case against what I'm suggesting and be in favor of gay marriage at the same time. You can't pick and choose your freedoms.

Hey sorry for the delayed response, I was in class. Something us rational thinking folks like to do. Anyway, let's start with public sex and nudity. Why are you comparing marriage equality to sex? What does gay marriage have to do with public sex and nudity? Just the fact that you made that comparison clearly shows how you feel. You view homosexuality as a purely sexual thing, but you don't look at heterosexuality the same way. Not that I have a problem with public nudity, but I can see how it makes some people uncomfortable.

Next point, polygamy and bigamy. If they could work out the tax benefits, end of life decision rights, custody battles, divorces, and all the other benefits that a marriage includes and make it so that it could apply to more than two individuals, then go for it. I wouldn't do it myself, but who am I to tell others not to? Again, no one is trying to redefine marriage, they just want to make sure that they have the right to enter into a civil contract with the person they love and have it recognized by the government. The technical legal term for this legal contract is "marriage", and it has nothing to do with religion. Mkay?

----------

Considering the results of the last two Presidential elections, I'd say the opposite is true.

Personally I think the last two elections went swimmingly. The party that is run by irrational religious loons who want to shove their bigoted un-American agenda down everyone's throats and try and scare the whole country into thinking that the dems are "socialists" lost. So I would say that you're wrong.

 

[Nunyabinez]

But what if the supreme court is wrong and rule in an opinionated way or misinterpret what the constitution means in regard to the case? This seems possible. What if this ruling which is wrong makes it so the the majority "gets screwed" by the minority?

I agree that the majority is fallible but I think any reasonable person would also have to concede that the supreme court is also fallible.

If the majority makes the mistake at least the majority of the people under that law are getting what they want. If the court sides with the minority and makes a mistake you have the majority living with a law that most people didn't want.

I'd rather not have a mistake made either way but if a mistake is made shouldn't it represent the majority of the voters instead of the minority?

Do you think that the supreme court is infallible?

No I don't think they are infallible, but they are part of a system of checks and balances. If the people feel the the Supreme Court is wrong, then they can push for a constitutional amendment. So the legislative branch has a way to in your words "have the final say" if people really feel like they are wrong. A constitutional amendment is not easy to get, but it can be done. It really is a beautiful system that prevents any one branch from having too much power.

 

[highdough]

Then for your sake I'll stop quoting scripture and paraphrase, haha. Where do I even start?

If you actually read the Bible you'd understand what it is about, you'd know the characters and then you'd believe that they knew Jesus. This is basic theology. Above all else, the writers of the Bible had nothing personal to gain from their spread of the gospel and were persecuted for believing it (a similar scorn faced by modern day Christians but to a lesser extent). Take Paul for example, when he was stuck in prison in Corinth did he pray to God that he'd be rescued? No, he prayed he'd still find ways to evangelize nonbelievers despite his situation. Or what about Nicodemus? The highly respected Jewish teacher who questioned Jesus, eventually turned his faith and lost everything for doing so. These are testaments to the faith of believers.

If you knew history you'd know that most, and possibly none, of the people that wrote about Jesus had even met him. You're trying to convince me with parables about faith, which doesn't make sense. I'm not religious. At all. You might as well be telling stories about people who believed they were abducted by aliens, because it has about the same effect. That's what religious people don't seem to understand. I'm not a non-believer who simply needs to be shown the light. I've seen the light. And, no offense, Christianity, and most other religions, simply seem silly to me. And it's not that I'm ignorant of them. I'm not. I find the history of religion quite interesting. Just not the religion itself.

----------

No wrong, you get your proofs if you believe. The problem is, you need a certain magnet, to be allowed to proofs. In university you need a certain degree, to be able to enter.

Proof doesn't require belief. It requires evidence.

 

[iMacFarlane]

...

If you actually read the Bible you'd understand what it is about, you'd know the characters and then you'd believe that they knew Jesus. This is basic theology. ...

I was born and raised Catholic, and was "born again" protestant after adulthood. But even with all of that time in church, I had never really read the bible.

Then, one day, I decided it was the right thing to do.

I read it, cover to cover.

And now I don't believe a word of it.

 

[Mrg02d]

Uh....no. Do you have any idea how long it would have taken to end segregation if the government relied on majority vote to make laws. I'm sure the majority would also vote to get rid of their income tax but keep their social security and medicare benefits when they retire, doesn't mean the government should make that happen. Not that they even could.

Ok communist regime.

----------

I was born and raised Catholic, and was "born again" protestant after adulthood. But even with all of that time in church, I had never really read the bible.

Then, one day, I decided it was the right thing to do.

I read it, cover to cover.

And now I don't believe a word of it.

Quoted for truth on judgement day.

Everyone here is retarded if you think you can win this argument....

How about we END tax benefits for married couples and see who REALLY wants to get married for love then? Same goes for medical benefits...Lets just get rid of ALL benefits for married couples and see how loud the argument is...

Edit: many here seem to be insulting anyone with faith. That's just a retarded. People don't believe in Jesus because they are convinced by some idiot facts someone presented. People believe based on experiences. Faith will never be explained. Stop trying to troll Christians by bringing up dumb crap. Instead, give your OWN experiences that contradict Christianity. Faith is all about experience and nothing to do with fact or reason. Don't try to understand it, try to experience it.

If you are a Christian but haven't any experiences, then you aren't a Christian. You better figure out why you believe yourself a Christian before you do yourself and others a disservice.

Might as well argue why android sucks and iOS rules...rolls eyes...

 

[Gamoe]

Why not create a broad category for *any* consenting adult union- whether they be straight, gay or polygamous? And then let the non-governmental social institutions (churches, secular organizations, etc.) handle the ceremonies? Why hardwire it to traditional and gay? Why make it more of a government issue than it has to be?

In any case, this is typical for Apple, even way before Cook. Apple has always been a very "gay-friendly" company.

And for crying out loud- the multi-colored Apple logo does in no way represent "gay" Apple! It was Apple's logo for most of its history and was meant to reflect the color capabilities of the Apple II and other Apple computers back in the day.

 

[MrDc2]

Personally I think the last two elections went swimmingly. The party that is run by irrational religious loons who want to shove their bigoted un-American agenda down everyone's throats and try and scare the whole country into thinking that the dems are "socialists" lost. So I would say that you're wrong.

We have a two party system and you're patting yourself on the back for making the "right" choice? Pah-lease.

----------

Nice. You're linking homosexuality with bestiality?

They're both sexual perversions aren't they?

----------

soooooo....

Apple = gays

android = straight

?

Let the bashings begin!!!

lawl!

----------

I love this argument, because it makes me laugh that people still actually say things like this.

..or laugh to conceal your inner shame?

 

[likemyorbs]

We have a two party system and you're patting yourself on the back for making the "right" choice? Pah-lease.

No, I'm patting the whole country on the back for not letting people like you have your way.
----------

They're both sexual perversions aren't they?

What makes you think you get to decide what a perversion is?

----------

Ok communist regime.

Any more right wing buzz words you'd like the throw around while you're at it?

 

[MrDc2]

Or force the majority to live with the desires of the minority. Which to me seems like the minority rules. Isn't that backward?

Yep. The same reason the TSA is patting down your grandmother at the airport when not one 91 year old white woman with parkinson's disease has ever carried out a terrorist attack. Ever. America has become too sensitive and tries too hard to be politically correct.

 

[likemyorbs]

America has become too sensitive and tries too hard to be politically correct.

Isn't what the segregationists said 50 years ago? Oh yeah, it is! It's funny to see how so many people cringe at progress. Must suck to live your life in fear and paranoia.

 

[MrDc2]

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?

If they Federally accept gay marriage they should recognize polygamy. It would only be fair. I'm against both but if the government wants to destroy an institution that is inherently religious... F it all. Might as well open it up to all sexual deviants.

----------

Well that's kind of my point isn't it? That's why it seems like a fair compromise. Homosexuals aren't going to be rushing to marry in conservative churches (a lot of folks don't realize that there are dozens of very, very large mainstream denominations that support gay marriage; they just aren't as vocal as the ones that don't), and likewise why should "traditional marriage" Christians be concerned about what the government is doing so long as the government allows them to define marriage in their own way? Churches ALREADY have the right to restrict marriage, even heterosexual marriage, for just about any reason.

I'm a Pastor, I have the right to refuse to marry someone if I feel it isn't right (like someone who has been divorced repeatedly and seems to be heading down the same path). If I retain that right, and if I happened to be a person who didn't support gay marriage, then why the heck would it matter to me if a person could get married at the courthouse anyway? I already understand marriage to be an important institution within the church, so what's the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple getting married in a court house?

Why call it marriage when it's anything but? Where did the term 'marriage' originate? Within Judaism? And in the old testament isn't homosexuality referred to as an abomination? Is that not part of the reason that God destroyed Sodom?

 

[likemyorbs]

If they Federally accept gay marriage they should recognize polygamy. It would only be fair. I'm against both but if the government wants to destroy an institution that is inherently religious... F it all. Might as well open it up to all sexual deviants.

----------



Why call it marriage when it's anything but? Where did the term 'marriage' originate? Within Judaism? And in the old testament isn't homosexuality referred to as an abomination? Is that not part of the reason that God destroyed Babel?

You reference the bible as if there is any truth to it. It's just a fictional book, but you falsely assume that we put any credence in it.

 

[MrDc2]

Please point out this "God's command" you speak of.

The Bible. It has been around for thousands of years. Try google. Or don't.

 

[Moyank24]

If they Federally accept gay marriage they should recognize polygamy. It would only be fair. I'm against both but if the government wants to destroy an institution that is inherently religious... F it all. Might as well open it up to all sexual deviants.

----------



Why call it marriage when it's anything but? Where did the term 'marriage' originate? Within Judaism? And in the old testament isn't homosexuality referred to as an abomination? Is that not part of the reason that God destroyed Sodom?

How come all of your brothers and sisters aren't protesting against and railing about divorce? Talk about destroying an institution....

Wasn't this country founded by people who were seeking religious freedom? Why are you trying to force your religious beliefs on those who don't share them? I'm sorry, and this may come as a shock, but this country is moving toward reality and away from historical fiction.

And your knowledge of the history of marriage is laughable. Unless your in-laws traded your wife for some goats and a few acres.

----------

The Bible. It has been around for thousands of years. Try google. Or don't.

Maybe he prefers non-fiction.

 

[MrDc2]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Interesting though, that once I admitted to being a Christian folks started attacking me, even though I agree with them. They only read as far as 'Christian' and started making assumptions!

Yep. You'll find that most people will begin by saying, " Well Christians do this..." and... "Christians...they do that! " - When in fact the number of Christians pales in comparison to the multitude of agnostics, atheists, secularists, gays etc.. and I find that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs now. "Oh you believe in God? Haha! "

 

[Moyank24]

Yep. You'll find that most people will begin by saying, " Well Christians do this..." and... "Christians...they do that! " - When in fact the number of Christians pales in comparison to the multitude of agnostics, atheists, secularists, gays etc.. and I find that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs now. "Oh you believe in God? Haha! "

I'm sure you'll be able to source all of the laws being written to deny Christians certain rights?