And the link (or lack of it)between these things was the point of the rest of that paragraph. If a country has made homosexuality illegal and society breaks down, then "obviously" making homosexuality illegal causes a breakdown in society. (Irony)
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 Among 60 Companies to File Statement with U.S. Supreme Court Backing Gay Marriage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
And the link (or lack of it)between these things was the point of the rest of that paragraph. If a country has made homosexuality illegal and society breaks down, then "obviously" making homosexuality illegal causes a breakdown in society. (Irony)
This statement lacks any form of truth.
In other societies there have always been lawfully accepted long-term partnerships that were totally different from your Christian understanding of marriage.
In many societies, past and present, a man could and can marry more than one woman. There were and are also societies where a woman could marry more than one man. And of course there have always been gay and lesbian partner.
The institution of marriage as defined by you (and the Christian church) is entirely arbitrary.
I don't. You're clearly either missing my point or trying hard to derail this thread. You want to talk about this more, start another one.
Too bad Apple has to be PC like most other big corporations. What if someone wants to marry two women, or a man wants to marry a woman and another man, or wants to marry his dog. Should we be supporting that too because it might affect his workplace morale?
Your dog is a legal adult over the age of 18 who is able to sign a marriage license and enter a contract?
This is a stupid argument, especially considering that there are much more valid arguments that make the same point. For example, if the idea is that same-sex marriage should be legal because consenting adults should be able to form whatever relationship they want, then the rational should logically extend to polygamy and sibling marriage. Most people are ok with banning the latter because it's gross.
I'm not totally opposed to same-sex marriage, but I am a fan of consistent logic. People should talk about the polygamy and sibling marriage possibilities and quit talking about marrying dogs and ducks.
Too bad Apple has to be PC like most other big corporations. What if someone wants to marry two women, or a man wants to marry a woman and another man, or wants to marry his dog. Should we be supporting that too because it might affect his workplace morale?
No but it does say a lot about you guys who still compare two men marrying to a man marrying a dog.
What on earth has marriage to do with procreation?
Can babies only be made by married people?
Can all married couples have babies?
It is an entirely different discussion if we talk about stable families as best institutions for raising kids.
President Obama got a few percentage points higher of the Black vote than did Kerry and Gore. Black voters transitionally vote for Democratic candidates. So with your logic is flawed.
Were you asking the same questions when Clinton got well over 80% of the black vote, twice? Al Gore and Kerry were at about 90%. Black people, by and large, do vote by color, only that color is blue.
Corporations can't marry based on their person status. Read the definition. I didn't hold an opinion until now about this: anyone opposing companies being corporations either don't know what they're talking about or are party-bashing.
It seems to me that today's problem is that we have TOO MANY freaking people!
Many can't even get a job and there are millions starving.
Besides, are YOU going to "turn gay"???
No, I don't think there is any possibility that everyone will "turn gay" and the human population will be endangered.
I fail to see where we disagree, yet you quoted me and immediately following the quote said "No, it's not." which suggests you believe we disagree in some way. Please, elaborate.
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?
Interesting data. I do stand corrected about the percentages' evidence, but it is still a problem that people vote based on race and other useless factors and that people pay attention to who was or will be the first Catholic/black/(etc) president.
When Obama was inaugurated, the head of the campus threw a celebratory viewing of it. We were cheering because Bush was replaced with a promising president. Afterwards, she said that this is only the start. We NEED a Hispanic, Native American, Jewish, etc president. That's what the party was all about. :/
Last edited:
I'm a Catholic and believe in gay marriage. I don't care if people say that because I do means I'm not a "true Catholic." I read up on what the Church says about being gay, and many sources seemed to imply that you were sinning and it is some kind of reversible choice. That is simply not true. Anybody who says marriage is between a man and a woman usually has a very difficult time backing up their argument, and usually just sounds ignorant. I understand if churches or other outside organizations do not want to marry gays, but the government should at least be able to allow it. You can't base all of your beliefs off of the bible. During its time arranged marriages and slavery were still very common, and both of those things have changed. The goal of the bible is to learn how to live like Jesus Christ and treat others well, not how to base your views on things such as social issues that clearly change over time.
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.
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.
- Status