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
That is wrong thinking of the jewish part, actually many christians from the middle east have jewish relatives, the church is founded by the jews. Just because they accepted christ, does not mean they are not jews. They are christians means--->reformed jews actually. Jews should learn to accept us as a branche of them, as we accept them as forefathers, the rest is a matter of understanding and shareing in love and respect, we are one israel, one family
PS: What i am trying to say is, we cant deny our jewish herritage and our blood, even beeing called christian, we dont deny our jewish brethren
Last edited:
I understand what you say and it is at this point that a serious discussion could commence, however these boards are not the place. Having said that, I will elaborate a bit...
First let me say that it is not an issue of Gay parents are no good for children and Het parents are automatically good. That is not my position and it is patent nonsense. Of course Gay parents could be excellent and we have plenty of examples of sick het parents like er... judge williams for example http://youtu.be/mpqcrwcghx4
The problem is an 'in principle' one. The issue of adoption is not easy to deal with but it's an issue that has more important issues in front of it.
I agree there should be less breeding. I myself am part of a non breeding pair and I could not have done any of the work I have otherwise. Non breeding is smart, and one does not have to be gay to not breed.
People are such hypocrites they pick and choose what they deem allowable. If I am in love with two different people why should I be denied the same rights as any other marriage?
[Marriage = man and woman] I'll allow it.
[Marriage = man and man] I'll allow it.
[Marriage = woman and woman] I'll allow it.
[Marriage = 1 man and 2 women] WOAH WOAH! We can't have that!
Hypocrites!!! Show me where my logic is flawed??
Normally I wouldn't chime in on this type of thread, due to the rampant idiocy being displayed. But this comment takes the cake... Let's address each point one at a time:
The answer is nothing - the world won't stop spinning, the air won't burst in to flames, etc. I've known two individuals who struggled with GID. One had gender reassignment surgery and is living a very happy and productive life. The other grew up in a conservative, unsupportive household, and ended up committing suicide.
Again, nothing. What do you think will happen?
Dogs can't legally consent to a contract.
The government has decided that there is a benefit to society for couples to be in a stable relationship, and therefore rewards couples who choose to enter into the legal contract that they call "marriage." Gay marriage provides the same benefits to society as straight marriage (household and economic stability, raising children, etc). It's discrimination to say that any two consenting adults can't enter into marriage.
That is wrong thinking of the jewish part, actually many christians from the middle east have jewish relatives, the church is founded by the jews. Just because they accepted christ, does not mean they are not jews. They are christians means--->reformed jews actually. Jews should learn to accept us as a branche of them, as we accept them as forefathers, the rest is a matter of understanding and shareing in love and respect, we are one israel, one family
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".
That's not proof, that's faith. A proof is something that will change a non believer's mind. For example, if I claim that objects fall in a vacuum on the surface of the Earth with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, but somebody doesn't believe me, we can drop things, measure their acceleration, and the resulting data is proof of my claim. (Or rather, supporting evidence. Only mathematics deals in proofs - science, including physics, is never so certain as to claim to have the final answer. Far as we know, gravity changes over time as the universe ages...)If the only "proof" is evident to people who already believe something, that's not proof of anything, that's just them having faith.
I believe there's a tea pot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Just believe with me, and you'll have the proof.
Ups, here in Spain both of them can change legally their gender in the Civil Registry and nothing has happened
Please, when a dog can consent to anything we will talk, until then it is the same stupid reasoning that people that it is against same sex marriage spits over and over
since when Apple is giving opinions about politics or people's rights ?
seriously ? Cook, go make computers and stuff and stop playing Obama's new puppy
seriously ? Cook, go make computers and stuff and stop playing Obama's new puppy
since when Apple is giving opinions about politics or people's rights ?
seriously ? Cook, go make computers and stuff and stop playing Obama's new puppy
You do realize legalizing gay marriage is bound to happen, right?
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?
Indeed. If we were to enumerate the legal ramifications of marriage (property inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.) I see no reason why such legalities couldn't be spread among multiple people. Eg, I want Bob, Sally and Mary to be able to visit me in the hospital and make critical care decisions on my behalf if I am unable. I want Mary, Erik and Steve to share my life insurance benefits if I die. Etc. Figuring out health benefits from my employer, and tax credits for dependents, would be more tricky though. Hmmm...
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.
Hmm the first three are spousal relationships, i.e. complete commitment of one citizen to another in an exclusive relationship. The last is concubinage, i.e. partial commitment by at least one of the individuals to another, i.i.e. not exclusive, not complete.
Conclusion, they aren't the same thing. One is unique the other is not and you could have as many of them as you can have friends.
So your 'allowable' question is irrelevant - you are talking about Apples and oranges, as it were. Totally legal to have as many concubines as you want in Washington state (and 4 others too) You can still only license one spouse.
Now if you think the state should license concubinage then write a letter to your legislator and get the ball rolling. But at least acknowledge that it is qualitatively different than a spousal relationship and incompatible with many of the state statutes that deal with licensed spouses.
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.
You are assuming that 3 people in one relationship cannot be as committed as 2 people. I would venture to say that polygamist relationships have the capability to be equal to or stronger than monogamous relationships. Just like gay marriages have the capability to be equal to or stronger than straight relationships.
Last edited:
Obviously they can't be in same way. One spouse is 100% committed to the other and vs versa. In the example given is the man 50% committed to one wife and 50% to the other? 100% committed on alternate days? Or are you saying that the husband isn't committed to the humans at all but to some vague corporate entity named 'the Marriage'?
To further complicate it Abrahamic polygamy is really polygyny, the man has separate licenses with each wife, they are are only related to him and not to the other wives at all. So we are in a situation where one person in the contract is fully committed to another and that individual is only partially committed to them.
Try as you might, there is no way a concubinage and a spousal relationship are qualitatively the same.
I don't see how you can make this generalization. Who are you to say that 3 people cannot be 100% committed to each other? Is a single mother 50% committed to her two children? True the children are dependent, my point is one person can make 100% commitment to two people.
- Status