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
There is only one God, and I have a feeling He is going to reveal this to all very soon.
Um, so my husband and I are having kids via surrogacy right now. And I know plenty of gay couples who've either adopted or gone through surrogacy.
The difference is that gay rights organizations aren't saying that you have to marry someone of the same sex. They just want the same rights as heterosexuals. Many conservative churches are trying to dictate the rights of others, not just themselves. If the government wanted to ban straight marriage, they would have every right to complain.
And keep in mind that this argument is the same one people had about mixed-race marriages decades ago. And women's right to vote before that. And slavery before that.
At some point, you have to question yourself for being on the wrong side of a basic civil rights issue.
----------
Straight marriage is being dictated by the government. Does that mean that NO marriage should be allowed?
Again, how does this affect your life? I'm still waiting for someone to explain this to me. Other people's religion negatively affects me way more than gay people getting married would affect you. All of these bigoted arguments could be used when interracial marriage was illegal. They didn't make any sense then, either.
They are only exempt from certain taxes on things like office supplies and the like. Clergy actually pay MORE income tax than the typical American. In addition to regular income tax, we have to pay self-employment tax, FICA (for social security, etc.) and the like. Additionally, there is a 'clergy tax' added to all of that. All other non-clergy employees are taxed like an employee of any other organization, for profit or otherwise. The churches income is also taxed (though there are some deductibles). Does a church pay as much tax as the local hardware store (per dollar of income)? No, it doesn't. But it does in fact pay taxes, quite a bit actually. A lot of folks misunderstand the non-profit tax code. It simply allows us to purchase things like office supplies, and things used directly for benevolent causes (like food for people in the community) and we are not taxed on income used to directly benefit needy people (like, for example, when we give money to the local food pantry or help needy families with things like utility bills)
The biggest 'break' is that most states do give a break on property taxes for church owned properties. Otherwise, they do pay the same taxes on things other than aforementioned. Anything else they pay normal taxes on. However, there are quite a few violations many churches are guilty of in the tax code. Including endorsing candidates or suggesting the congregation votes one way or another, which DOES violate the churches tax exempt status. My church does NOT do those things, and one thing I would ask is that folks have the same open-mindedness towards us that they rightfully ask of us to them. Not all churches are the same, not by far. It's just you only hear about the particularly nasty, corrupt, or bigoted ones, as they tend to be the loudest. The rest of us are too busy trying our best to do what Christ asked us to do (care for the people in our communities and in the world, among other things) to be protesting or rallying for political candidates.
Even so, a person should not be penalized with more taxes or lose benefits purely based on their beliefs or understandings. I do, however, think the IRS should enforce their own rules on not affiliating with political candidates if you are a non-profit.
Also, I don't know that I would call many churches 'for profit'. Like anything else, there are bad seeds. You have large denominations amassing untold wealth, and you have these giant non-denominational mega churches with multi-million dollar payrolls. But, that's not most churches. Most churches are much smaller, spending far more on the community than on new things for the church or salaries. MOST Clergy are below the U.S. average income, especially when you consider many denominations, including my own, require a Masters degree. Clergy in my denomination on average make less than half of what the US average is for people with equivalent education.
Now you may still disagree, and that's okay. But there is certainly more to the story than what you may typically here.
Be sure to let us all know so I can start screwing everything that moves before I get smitten (smited? smoten? idk)
I just don't want it to be a banned term. It's a term. So is Nazi and Hitler. Courtesy is also valid.
So why does that argument work for linens but not homosexuality? Both are from the Old Testament and neither are mentioned in the New Testament which should take precedence.
I honestly don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. So how does the money or the army take care of improper decisions of the court? Do they not pay the judges and then send in the squad to remove the judges at gun point? That's the sarcastic part speaking. If being serious so I see a "balance of power" on paper but nothing really to stop the court from being a monarchy in a way. By the way in reality where do the people fit in here? I just don't see us having much power and the courts having a lot of power which brings me back to my first point that I don't think it is OK for the court to overrule the popular vote of the people.
Gay rights is a major, yet basic, civil rights issue. All major civil rights issues have prevailed.
To anyone that goes against it: History is against you.
And how exactly do some people relate gay rights to bestiality and/or marrying dogs (or other non-relevant issues for that matter)? It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, no group is forcing "gay" (and gay rights) onto anyone. They are only advocating for equal rights for themselves. Unfortunately, due to the large denial and discrimination against them, their voice has to be heard in order for anything to be done about it. By that logic: Groups that advocated equal rights for women were "forcing" people to be female and equal racial rights groups are forcing you to be their skin colour. Makes perfect sense. Yupp.
To anyone that goes against it: History is against you.
And how exactly do some people relate gay rights to bestiality and/or marrying dogs (or other non-relevant issues for that matter)? It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, no group is forcing "gay" (and gay rights) onto anyone. They are only advocating for equal rights for themselves. Unfortunately, due to the large denial and discrimination against them, their voice has to be heard in order for anything to be done about it. By that logic: Groups that advocated equal rights for women were "forcing" people to be female and equal racial rights groups are forcing you to be their skin colour. Makes perfect sense. Yupp.
Your straw men are made of straw. We have granted special status to heterosexual couples since they were likely to reproduce and at some point this was deemed good for society. We decided that having more than one wife was nasty and outlawed that. Now, gay people want the same privileges that were afforded to the reproducers, but their unions provide no benefit to society. Of course we have wrecked the traditional marriage so that it also doesn't benefit society, but is an artifact. What should happen is that marriage is done away with, because it no longer is benefiting society, not extending it to gays.
This isn't about civil rights. I don't care at all whether or not gay marriage is considered marriage by the government. What I do care about is the right of any person to express his beliefs without getting punished. Gay rights organizations do try to be the thought police.
For example, the Chick Fil-A owner was asked for his stance on gay marriage. He gave it, and now the gay rights organizations are trying to hurt his business. Death to them for doing something like that.
----------
It just means "black" in Latin. I do find it annoying that it's banned.
So you're suggesting making it illegal for married couples NOT to procreate? Or perhaps a simple medical test to make sure you are able to have children before you get married?
Besides, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ONLY gay people be allowed to marry. And you realize that you don't even need to be married to have kids, right?
Ironically, I've been with my "wife" for 21 years, we have two daughters, a house and a great life together despite never having been married. My brother did get married, but they never had kids.
Personally, I don't see the point of actually getting married, but I think it should be up to every couple, gay or straight, whether they want to get married.
And exactly how is gay marriage going to affect YOU?
You may be right in a large regard but waiting for enough time to pass for the courts to wise up doesn't seem like a great solution. It may be what it is but it doesn't mean I have to like it much.
I never said that gay marriage affects me. What affects me is people trying to force others to publicly announce that they support gay marriage. I don't care what the government does about gay marriage, but I personally do not condone it. Legalize it if it seems proper, see if I care. But if I said that without anonymity as a famous person, I'd get sued. That's the problem.
Secondly, churches are coaxed into supporting it. If they do not want to, they should not have to. The church is separate from the government and should be able to call whatever they want "marriage".
Again it's not "my" decision. But my Bible translation of choice has come to be the ESV (English Standard Version). But those who translate the Bible accurately and properly do so from the original greek, hebrew and aramaic text.
No.
They (opponents) simply do not equate it to marriage between a woman and a man.
They (the majority of the opponents) want it to be differentiated not banned.
Seriously.
Apple has now been on both sides of this debate depending on the sexual orientation of the CEO.
JUST CALL IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I want to have a harem. Who do I contact to declare that legal? It has been "common" for centuries!!
Rocketman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Last edited:
Of course it's about civil rights. What some gay rights organizations do has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's like saying it's not a civil rights issue if someone wanted to ban religion because of the reaction of churches. It's a ridiculous argument.
It seems that your opposition of gay marriage has very little to do with actual gay marriage, but of some of those who want it. And that's simply petty.
Thank you. I'm sick of hearing "people who vote yes on prop 8 want to ban gay marriage". I didn't vote on that, but people who did did not necessarily want to ban gay marriage.
Terrific idea!
Zoophilia is fine, as long as both parties are consenting adults.
I'll be glad to give you away...
But-- think of the children!
On second thought, don't.
Hmmm, don't remember all that happening. I think it happened that way because before now, people would kill you if you said you were gay. AND, because the men in charge wanted a way to own women and keep other men from getting his. Remember, not that long ago women were possessions and couldn't own anything on their own. Heteros got all the bennies because they could freely set it up that way. The deck was stacked early on.
So, having a stable home life isn't beneficial to children? Although, I would argue that many people can have a steady home life without marriage. I also will probably never get married because it's not important to me. However, you are much more likely to allow a small percentage of gay people to marry than to unravel the entire business of marriage, so let's stick with reality.
Some people have a feeling that the government is beaming radio waves into their heads but that doesn't mean we should craft our legal system around their beliefs.
- Status