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

[phillipduran]

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.

I was talking about polygamy.

Can you check to see if you quoted the right person?

 

[BobVB]

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.

And I don't see how you don't. A parent isn't 100% committed to all their children at the same time - its impossible. They can't promise each child individually all their wealth, all their time. They can only be 100% committed to another vague corporate entity 'the Children'.

Concubines, friends and children have more in common than spouses by the uniqueness of the relationship (there can be only one between an individual) and by its completeness, only the spouse is a promise of 100% commitment.

Take for example in Washington state - you get rowdy, arrested and put under a 72 hour psych watch. The state sends the bill for that stay to who? With a Marriage they send it to the spouse, but with a concubinage which of them is responsible for the tab? Divide the bill by the number of concubines and send them all a bill for that amount? Figure out who was the 100% commitment concubine of the day and send them the bill?

Again, spousal relationships by the very nature of the exclusive and complete commitment are qualitatively different than a concubinage.

 

[Nunyabinez]

I was talking about polygamy.

Can you check to see if you quoted the right person?

My bad, I thought you were talking about refuting Macintoshi

 

[LeiQQ]

Should immigration be a religious issue too since right now marriage effects immigration.

Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place - the entire thing is a religious concept and so having the government say it is or isn't allowed is like having the government approve and disapprove of specific religions (which is explicitly non-constitutional.)

----------

That would be fine since almost anyone can get their license to marry couples. I think if any religious organization wants to discriminate let them go for it. I mean ok they don't have to let their clergy perform the marriage but the organization is probably going to still need to recognize it. I think there will always be big problems with this issue. Just look at what happened for the teacher at the university of notre Dame. Not about gays but still an issue involved when working for a religious affiliated company/organization.

I just think they should be seperate. Religious folks have rights too, including to restrict things because of their understanding of morality. Let the government marry people of the same sex, and let the churches decide whether or not they'd like to participate in it. You may or may not agree with the religious organizations decision, but you don't have to participate with them either! And, taking away one persons rights and giving it to someone else isn't any more equality. Like it or not, agree with it or not, religious institutions also have rights!

----------

Fact: fake marriage exists in which neither person loves each other but one of those needs a green card.

Fact: two gay individuals in which both love each other have to choose love over their country because a green card cannot be secured for their international partner.

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?

 

[chriscrk]

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.

What I'm wondering is why you're insisting so much to talk about polygamy in a thread that discusses gay marriage. That's what the thread has been about since the original post. So why are you pushing a different subject in here?

 

[inscrewtable]

I don't see why pro-gay marriage advocates don't back me up on polygamy, bigamy, public nudity and sex in the streets! Two men and two women why not two men and a woman or two women and a man? Or one man married to a man and a woman but in different marriages? If they are consenting adults why not?

As far as public nudity and sex in public, I don't see how it is any different than showing it in the media which they already do anyway. You have the option to look away or change the channel. It doesn't affect your life.

I'm a straight person and I ask where are my rights to do these things??? Discrimination!!!

One persons 'Right' is another persons 'Duty', if everyone did their duty then no one would need to demand their rights. I agree with the point that you are making.

A politician in Australia recently equated gay married to polygamy and he was crucified but the point is valid, if one looks into the matter deeply.

The most serious problem with the world at the moment is that the children have been abandoned to fend for themselves in a world that is not of their making and has gone out of control due to the excessively juvenile and emotionally stunted so called adults. So children are being raised by children.

The spectre of Tom Cruise jumping up and down on a sofa, is one of the iconic images of this new phenomenon. It has always been there of course but what no one seems to have realised is that just like the ipod and ipad have swept the world and changed the world, so the concurrent growth of the internet and the ready availability of internet pornography has created a sort of global village where concepts and ideas sweep around the world.

The old ways will not work, prohibition, fortressing people will not work. The solution is knowledge. The knowledge required, is encased in a new paradigm as ground shifting as was Einstein's new view of reality. Suddenly the Newtonian universe was wrong. Maxwell's triumph of the electromagnetic equations, probably the most brilliant piece of 19th century physics, was wrong.

The ideas required need no intellectual discipline, merely the ability to see the same problems from a new angle. Which I provide, (sorry if that bugs people).

I propose that to fix up this world begins with education and the best people to educate the kids are the parents but the parents themselves are little children. So you can see the immensity of the problem. I see marriage as the proper institution where the problems of the world, (objectification of women, sexualisation of children and infantilisation of adults) are properly tackled.

This is why it is important to protect this institution even if it is not understood at the moment. Let the gay people do their gay thing let them have the rights and duties of the married couple but please, just give it another name. Like 'civil union'. If that is not good enough then it's just political mean spirited BS.

Gay people have the right to live as a married couple in a civil union with all the concomitant obligations, but they do not have the right to appropriate the institution of marriage. Where do they get off with that crap.

Imagine if the Church wanted to claim back the use of the word 'gay' for heterosexual use. They could have their own gay mardi gras and just say that they are very very happy and jolly people, they want the right to call themselves gay.

Look the world gave the homosexual community the free use of the word 'gay'. They gave them that word with acceptance and love. Now those ingrates want to steal the word 'marriage'. Sorry gay people, I support your rights but not your right to steal other peoples words because of your own insecurities.

 

[vvebsta]

And I don't see how you don't. A parent isn't 100% committed to all their children at the same time - its impossible. They can't promise each child individually all their wealth, all their time. They can only be 100% committed to another vague corporate entity 'the Children'.

Concubines, friends and children have more in common than spouses by the uniqueness of the relationship (there can be only one between an individual) and by its completeness, only the spouse is a promise of 100% commitment.

Take for example in Washington state - you get rowdy, arrested and put under a 72 hour psych watch. The state sends the bill for that stay to who? With a Marriage they send it to the spouse, but with a concubinage which of them is responsible for the tab? Divide the bill by the number of concubines and send them all a bill for that amount? Figure out who was the 100% commitment concubine of the day and send them the bill?

Again, spousal relationships by the very nature of the exclusive and complete commitment are qualitatively different than a concubinage.

I will agree that when it comes to finances it cannot be 100%. But I was referring to is commitment in the relationship. Cant you be emotionally committed to two people at once? When it comes to raising a family 3 people would make it easier to share the load. What is it that 2 people share in the relationship that 3 people can't? What makes two the magic number?

 

[LeiQQ]

So now gay people are equated with criminals. Sad.

While I don't think someone should be discriminated against because they are gay, I abhor the "Born that way" argument. Not saying that people aren't born gay, but genetics is not a free pass for behavior. Many criminals have genetic propensities for violence, but we don't condone that. So, please, please use a better argument than "I'm genetically predisposed so it's OK."

 

[BobVB]

I support your rights but not your right to steal other peoples words because of your own insecurities.

I am just going to assume that is some long parody since of course no reasonable person thinks anyone can own words unless we are talking trademarks for a specific business purpose.

 

[Nunyabinez]

So now gay people are equated with criminals. Sad.

Dude, welcome to the party two days late.

 

[LeiQQ]

Last time I checked you could still get pregnant without a marriage?! Did I miss something in sex Ed class?

Seems to me one of the purposes of marriage is to foster procreation, and last time I checked its impossible for a man to impregnate another man or a woman another woman. If society doesn't procreate what happens to it?

 

[chriscrk]

One persons 'Right' is another persons 'Duty', if everyone did their duty then no one would need to demand their rights. I agree with the point that you are making.

A politician in Australia recently equated gay married to polygamy and he was crucified but the point is valid, if one looks into the matter deeply.

The most serious problem with the world at the moment is that the children have been abandoned to fend for themselves in a world that is not of their making and has gone out of control due to the excessively juvenile and emotionally stunted so called adults. So children are being raised by children.

The spectre of Tom Cruise jumping up and down on a sofa, is one of the iconic images of this new phenomenon. It has always been there of course but what no one seems to have realised is that just like the ipod and ipad have swept the world and changed the world, so the concurrent growth of the internet and the ready availability of internet pornography has created a sort of global village where concepts and ideas sweep around the world.

The old ways will not work, prohibition, fortressing people will not work. The solution is knowledge. The knowledge required, is encased in a new paradigm as ground shifting as was Einstein's new view of reality. Suddenly the Newtonian universe was wrong. Maxwell's triumph of the electromagnetic equations, probably the most brilliant piece of 19th century physics, was wrong.

The ideas required need no intellectual discipline, merely the ability to see the same problems from a new angle. Which I provide, (sorry if that bugs people).

I propose that to fix up this world begins with education and the best people to educate the kids are the parents but the parents themselves are little children. So you can see the immensity of the problem. I see marriage as the proper institution where the problems of the world, (objectification of women, sexualisation of children and infantilisation of adults) are properly tackled.

This is why it is important to protect this institution even if it is not understood at the moment. Let the gay people do their gay thing let them have the rights and duties of the married couple but please, just give it another name. Like 'civil union'. If that is not good enough then it's just political mean spirited BS.

Gay people have the right to live as a married couple in a civil union with all the concomitant obligations, but they do not have the right to appropriate the institution of marriage. Where do they get off with that crap.

Imagine if the Church wanted to claim back the use of the word 'gay' for heterosexual use. They could have their own gay mardi gras and just say that they are very very happy and jolly people, they want the right to call themselves gay.

Look the world gave the homosexual community the free use of the word 'gay'. They gave them that word with acceptance and love. Now those ingrates want to steal the word 'marriage'. Sorry gay people, I support your rights but not your right to steal other peoples words because of your own insecurities.

Yes, how dare the gays steal words from the straights!
As everyone knows, straight people own all words and only THEY have the right to determine who and how they should be used!

 

[inscrewtable]

I know, Gay + Marriage = Garriage.

Hello, I'm Tim and this is my partner 'Cookie', we've been garried for one year.

 

[BobVB]

I will agree that when it comes to finances it cannot be 100%. But I was referring to is commitment in the relationship. Cant you be emotionally committed to two people at once? When it comes to raising a family 3 people would make it easier to share the load. What is it that 2 people share in the relationship that 3 people can't? What makes two the magic number?

The magic of arithmetic - a 1 to 1 correspondence is qualitatively different than a 1:2,or 1:3 or 1:whatever.

You were comparing spousal relationship with concubinage and suggested that supporting one and not the other is hypocrisy and I say treating things that have very different qualities differently isn't hypocritical.

But I get the impression you are really asking 'Why don't we license concubinage?' which I have already said 'go make your case to your state legislature'. Again, in Washington state polyamoury and concubinage is completely legal - you can live with as many people as you want. They just aren't a spousal relationship, i.e. unique and complete one person to another reciprocally and my state at least only registers the establishment of a spousal familial relationship. I mean that's all a civil marriage is - the legal establishment of a certain kind of familial relationship, similar to the way adoption is the legal establishment of a parental child relationship.

YOu can only have one spouse, you can have many concubines, just like you can have many friends.

What would be the benefits of legally registering a concubinal relationship anyway?

 

[inscrewtable]

Yes, how dare the gays steal words from the straights!
As everyone knows, straight people own all words and only THEY have the right to determine who and how they should be used!

Do you think it is right that Fred Flintstone can't proclaim to the world that he and his good buddy Barney had a gay old time, without people casting aspersions over their manly activities.

btw was it necessary to quote my entire post?

----------

I am just going to assume that is some long parody since of course no reasonable person thinks anyone can own words unless we are talking trademarks for a specific business purpose.

Words are dynamic, they can change their meanings slowly over a long period of time. For example originally 'silly' meant 'blessed'.

There is no point or reason to change the meaning of the word 'marriage' which is in effect what the gay community are asking. Who gives them the right to demand that they want the meaning of the word changed? Why not just invent a new word for a new concept.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and it is implicit that progeny are a part of the meaning. Gay people need a different word for a different concept. It's just a civil union.

 

[BobVB]

Do you think it is right that Fred Flintstone can't proclaim to the world that he and his good buddy Barney had a gay old time, without people casting aspersions over their manly activities.

Why can't they? Any one with the IQ of a rabbit knows the word has multiple meanings and one of them has meant 'homosexual' for almost a century. Shoot Gary Grant in the 1930's mainstream movie 'Bringing Up Baby' when asked why he was wearing a ladies dressing gown yelled "I've just gone gay all of a sudden!"

Words have many meanings and usages and no one thinks they have exclusive ownership of them.

 

[seek3r]

So since we are breaking this barrier, I can marry my dog now right?

There is a massive difference between 2 consenting adults and 1 consenting adult and a non-consenting animal. If you can't see that I really don't know what to say to someone so willfully stupid.

 

[BobVB]

Who gives them the right to demand that they want the meaning of the word changed?

You misunderstand - this is about having access to a 100% totally secular civil contract for licensing spouses title 'Marriage'. If you want to reserve a word for some sort of personal use then tell the state to stop using it when you know it has an obligation to treat all its citizens equally.

A better argument for you would be to suggest using a different contract title for all spousal registration.

 

[firestarter]

So since we are breaking this barrier, I can marry my dog now right?

There is a massive difference between 2 consenting adults and 1 consenting adult and a non-consenting animal. If you can't see that I really don't know what to say to someone so willfully stupid.

Woof?

 

[macintoshi]

Why can't they? Any one with the IQ of a rabbit knows the word has multiple meanings and one of them has meant 'homosexual' for almost a century. Shoot Gary Grant in the 1930's mainstream movie 'Bringing Up Baby' when asked why he was wearing a ladies dressing gown yelled "I've just gone gay all of a sudden!"

Words have many meanings and usages and no one thinks they have exclusive ownership of them.

From wikipedia:
Gay*is a term that primarily refers to ahomosexual*person or the trait of being homosexual.The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy". The term's use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1]*In modern*English, "gay" has come to be used as anadjective, and as a*noun, referring to*the people, especially to males, and the*practices*andcultures*associated with homosexuality.By the end of the 20th century, the word "gay" was recommended by major*LGBT*groups and*style guides*to describe people*attracted to members of the same sex.[2][3]*At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the*Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to*rubbish*or*stupid(as in "That's so gay."). In this use, the word does not mean "homosexual", so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves. This usage can also refer to weakness or unmanliness. When used in this way, the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized.

 

[chriscrk]

Do you think it is right that Fred Flintstone can't proclaim to the world that he and his good buddy Barney had a gay old time, without people casting aspersions over their manly activities.

btw was it necessary to quote my entire post?

----------



Words are dynamic, they can change their meanings slowly over a long period of time. For example originally 'silly' meant 'blessed'.

There is no point or reason to change the meaning of the word 'marriage' which is in effect what the gay community are asking. Who gives them the right to demand that they want the meaning of the word changed? Why not just invent a new word for a new concept.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and it is implicit that progeny are a part of the meaning. Gay people need a different word for a different concept. It's just a civil union.

Some people still use the word gay as happy. Lots of words change meaning with time, it happens with language. And only immature people would question the use of the word "gay" when they know the context.

 

[BobVB]

From wikipedia: …

Very interesting and reinforces the point I was making but not sure about the 'why' you quoted it.

 

[macintoshi]

Very interesting and reinforces the point I was making but not sure about the 'why' you quoted it.

Exactly cause of that, reinforced it.

 

[MrDc2]

Oh nos

----------

Translation: There is no proof and you have to believe

Disprove.

 

[inscrewtable]

You misunderstand - this is about having access to a 100% totally secular civil contract for licensing spouses title 'Marriage'. If you want to reserve a word for some sort of personal use then tell the state to stop using it when you know it has an obligation to treat all its citizens equally.

A better argument for you would be to suggest using a different contract title for all spousal registration.

It is not reserving a word for "personal use" it's about reserving a word whose description contains the essence of a unique meaning. For I intend to expand up this meaning of a union between a man and a woman.

If there is no word to describe something then it can have a major impact if the meaning of a missing word is vital to the ability to conceive an idea.

For example, the Sanskrit word "mithya" has no equivalent in English and not having a word for this concept causes all the existential problems in the West. Not to say that having the word solves the same existential problems but at least the word is there and allows for the possibility to grapple with the concept it describes.

Which by the way is 'dependent reality' In English something is either 'real' or 'unreal', a unicorn is 'unreal' a shirt is 'real'. Science has been grappling with 'what is reality' since Francis Bacon and Descartes, which led to the science wars of the 70's. But this is because there is no word for 'real', instead they use 'mithya' as if it meant real.

In Sanskrit, there is Real, Unreal, and Dependently Real. English just uses Unreal to mean dependently real then they argue for 2400 years what 'reality' means.

In actual fact a shirt is not real, it is just a form of the underlying reality of the material, which itself is not real being just a form of the underlying reality of the threads ... the fibres... the molecules... the atoms... the sub atomic particles...the quarks...the energy...a disturbance in a non material field...a concept in a mind...a thought...which one is aware of and therefore is not you. So what is reality? really.