Sidebar Sidebar
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fatalbert said:
"Happened by random chance" doesn't sound very plausible to most people, sorry.
Click to expand...

Well since there are a few trillion planets in the universe, and only one that we currently know of has life on it, it seems like a pretty random/accidental occurrence to me. That doesn't seem plausible, but a 2000 year old book written by humans who thought the earth was flat is more believable? If that's what the majority believes in, I'll remain a minority that you very much.
 
Plutonius said:
Will it make safari snappier :D ?
Click to expand...

I want to punch you in the face so much right now...

-------------------------

Anyway, with how much separation of church and state has happened in the last 100 years, I just don't get how gay marriage isn't allowed in every state. I know some people stand up for so called "traditional values", but those values come from the bible. How much longer are they going to put bible values as laws? I know that these values are just the mores of our society that became our laws to start, but there is a point where it needs to change, and this is coming from a conservative christian.
 
likemyorbs said:
Well since there are a few trillion planets in the universe, and only one that we currently know of has life on it, it seems like a pretty random/accidental occurrence to me. That doesn't seem plausible, but a 2000 year old book written by humans who thought the earth was flat is more believable? If that's what the majority believes in, I'll remain a minority that you very much.
Click to expand...

Actually, they may have known that it was round... ancient Greeks knew this. The very design of the universe and its physical laws (gravity for example) that make life possible seem too meaningful to some to be considered random. Just providing the actual argument. But it's whatever you want. I'll stick with the majority.

Also, know that not all Christians believe strictly in the Bible. You can't trust everything in it literally, but just because it's old doesn't make it untrustworthy. Consider how many ancient books there are such as Caesar's commentary that are reasonably accurate.
 
Fatalbert said:
Yeah, they are. Maybe not by criminal court but by civil court. Also, please stop using that highly inaccurate term, or at least recognize that "homophobic" is an inaccurate term. It's like calling a pedophile a "pedo". Yeah, a child :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone winning any civil cases against someone for being against gay marriage.

As for homophobia being an inaccurate term, I really have no idea what you're talking about. The literal definition of homophobia is being prejudiced against homosexual people. Are you suggesting otherwise?
 
Fatalbert said:
Society or the church. Two people can choose to get married (by their own definition) no matter what the government says about the legitimacy of the marriage. Religious people will go to the church. But I personally consider marriage a religious thing, not really social. People can have families and not be married.
Click to expand...


I'm an atheist, church is out of the question. Stop "forcing your beliefs" on me. And society? How does society issue a marriage license? Please elaborate on that, very interesting. Again, you are not acknowledging that tax and benefits part of marriage which obviously must be controlled by the government. Marriage is not just an emotional commitment, it's a LEGAL CONTRACT that comes with many privileges and establishes two people as a legal family with the right to make medical decisions for each other and mandates child custody. What about that do you not understand? I keep repeating myself and I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

----------
Fatalbert said:
Actually, they may have known that it was round... ancient Greeks knew this.
Click to expand...

Splitting hairs much?
 
highdough said:
As for homophobia being an inaccurate term, I really have no idea what you're talking about. The literal definition of homophobia is being prejudiced against homosexual people. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Click to expand...

I know, it's a lost cause at this point. The English definition, sadly, defines it as such, but Greek scholars (not me) would be tearing their hair out. The words it is derived from do not match the meaning besides the "phobia" part.
 
likemyorbs said:
I'm an atheist, church is out of the question. Stop "forcing your beliefs" on me. And society? How does society issue a marriage license? Please elaborate on that, very interesting. Again, you are not acknowledging that tax and benefits part of marriage which obviously must be controlled by the government. Marriage is not just an emotional commitment, it's a LEGAL CONTRACT that comes with many privileges and establishes two people as a legal family with the right to make medical decisions for each other and mandates child custody. What about that do you not understand? I keep repeating myself and I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
Click to expand...

I never said the government should give benefits to married couples. Families should be recognized, not marriages. Married couples do not necessarily have kids, and unmarried people may have kids in a family.

If two people choose to get married, that is either the church's decision or their own decision if they do not belong to a church. Why is the government involved in this contract?

----------
highdough said:
Uh....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

You may not LIKE that is the definition, but it is.

Perhaps you should rethink the rest of your argument, as well.
Click to expand...

I know that's what it is. It's just irritating. Same goes with using "Asian" to describe only eastern Asians, less than half of Asia by geography. I will refuse to use either term.
 
inscrewtable said:
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.

Same sex couples should obviously be allowed to form a civil union and have the same legal rights as a married couple, but it should not be called 'marriage' which has been reserved, and indeed was a natural product of humanity, for the union of a man and a woman.

I am currently publishing a complete new sexual philosophy for the 21st century which covers this topic in detail.

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

Well, hopefully you can maintain a deductively logical line of reasoning, because from your comment it doesn't appear to be the case.

I almost think this comment is trying to be satirical. That's how ridiculous it is. Please say it's true.
 
inscrewtable said:
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.

Same sex couples should obviously be allowed to form a civil union and have the same legal rights as a married couple, but it should not be called 'marriage' which has been reserved, and indeed was a natural product of humanity, for the union of a man and a woman.

I am currently publishing a complete new sexual philosophy for the 21st century which covers this topic in detail.

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

All I have to say is this: Why do you care? You're splitting hairs, and so are the gays and gay rights activists.

Whatever happens, you and I can just consider "marriage" a religious relationship between a man and a woman and let others think how they wish. It's just a word definition that is adversely affecting (probably in a bad way) USA politics. At least if gay marriage is legitimatized and left behind like that, it won't be a political platform issue anymore.
 
Last edited:
Fatalbert said:
I never said the government should give benefits to married couples. Families should be recognized, not marriages. Married couples do not necessarily have kids, and unmarried people may have kids in a family.
Click to expand...

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So you support two men and their adopted children being recognized by the government as a family? This way the spouses will be legally entitled to make decisions for their partner in a coma as opposed to their family saying "well they weren't legally married so it's still OUR choice whether to keep him on life support or not". And since they are both the legal guardians of their adopted children, one spouse cannot leave the country or take away the kids from the other spouse in any way because this would be considered kidnapping. And when they apply for health insurance as family, they will be recognized as a family regardless of the gender of the parents. Correct? Because if this is how you look at it then I had you figured all wrong.
 
highdough said:
It may be irritating, but trying to tell someone it's inaccurate is a rather flawed argument. But so is the argument against gay marriage....
Click to expand...

There's no way to argue for or against gay marriage itself. It just depends on the person. If someone wants to dictate to me that gay marriage is legit marriage, I will not accept that and will lose respect for that person for trying to force a personal belief, but that is a different issue from its legitimization under the law. For that, do whatever, but if you must ask me, the answer is NO because of what the gay rights groups do.
 
Fatalbert said:
I'm disappointed in both for choosing a side on the issue just to gain good publicity. It's clearly politics.
Click to expand...

But I thought the majority is against it? How is it good publicity if most people are against it? You can't have it both ways. Unless you acknowledge that people with your point of view are a minority and the president was just pandering to the majority for political reasons. Otherwise Apple and Obama would be gaining bad publicity.
 
Fatalbert said:
There's no way to argue for or against gay marriage itself. It just depends on the person. If someone wants to dictate to me that gay marriage is legit marriage, I will not accept that and will lose respect for that person for trying to force a personal belief, but that is a different issue from its legitimization under the law. For that, do whatever, but if you must ask me, the answer is NO because of what the gay rights groups do.
Click to expand...

You do realize that this ^, is a far cry from this....

Fatalbert said:
Yay, same (kinda). I'd only vote no because the gay rights organizations try to force me and others to vote yes.
Click to expand...
Right? Amazing how one's true character comes out over the span of a few posts.
 
likemyorbs said:
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So you support two men and their adopted children being recognized by the government as a family? This way the spouses will be legally entitled to make decisions for their partner in a coma as opposed to their family saying "well they weren't legally married so it's still OUR choice whether to keep him on life support or not". And since they are both the legal guardians of their adopted children, one spouse cannot leave the country or take away the kids from the other spouse in any way because this would be considered kidnapping. And when they apply for health insurance as family, they will be recognized as a family regardless of the gender of the parents. Correct? Because if this is how you look at it then I had you figured all wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of same-sex couples having a family, and I like the idea of separate-sex couples having families with biological children because it promotes family unity, but this is not the case. There are families of all sorts, and the government should consider them families for their good.

But calling relationships "marriage" by law is a bad idea only because it invites controversy. It's like calling Christianity "religion" by law. I just don't think the government should dictate what a marriage is because that is different from a family. There can be a family without marriage. If a man and a woman marry and adopt children, then the woman dies, everyone considers that a family. The parent(s) care for the children.

----------
likemyorbs said:
You do realize that this ^, is a far cry from this....


Right? Amazing how one's true character comes out over the span of a few posts.
Click to expand...

No. The gay rights organizations try to dictate to me what marriage is and try to punish those who disagree with them, so I will vote for what they oppose since I otherwise would not vote either way. I don't think the government should recognize marriages between any couples, only families, but having the government recognize marriages between only heterosexual couples vs all couples does not really mean anything to me.
 
sbrhwkp3 said:
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. :apple:
Click to expand...

It should ONLY be a government issue, in which case religious beliefs should not be involved.
 
Fatalbert said:
I don't like the idea of same-sex couples having a family, and I like the idea of separate-sex couples having families with biological children because it promotes family unity, but this is not the case. There are families of all sorts, and the government should consider them families for their good.

But calling relationships "marriage" by law is a bad idea only because it invites controversy. It's like calling Christianity "religion" by law. I just don't think the government should dictate what a marriage is because that is different from a family.
Click to expand...

Listen, here's the point. If you truly believe government should stay out of marriage and recognize families even if the spouses are the same sex, fine, that's great. But if you are legally married or plan on getting legally married at some point in your life, and you oppose same sex couple having that same option available to them, then I think that falls under the bigotry category.
 
Every couple should have the LEGAL benefits of marriage if they chose so.

Marriage should be a religious thing left to the church.

I have a feeling this whole thing is just a war over word choice. What's the difference between marriage and a civil union if you have the same benefits? If you want to call it marriage, then call it marriage. So what!
 
highdough said:
Things haven't been the same since the 13th amendment, have they?
Click to expand...

I dont like my money that I've given Apple going towards ANY political hot topic or any political party. (even ones i support) Whats next... donating to a for or against abortion group? Throw your money at a disease or some needy folks Apple... Stay out of the political debates and pay attention to your technology! No wonder your stock has been going downhill...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back