Let me see if I get this argument right.... Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they want to have sex without being married??????
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 CEO Tim Cook Publicly Comes Out as Gay in Letter Declaring Support for Equality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Let me see if I get this argument right.... Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they want to have sex without being married??????
I'll just leave this right here...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
This is just a short list of animals which have been observed to exhibit homosexual behavior. It may not include deer specifically, but it does include carabou, goats, and giraffes, along with examples from virtually every classification of animal, including invertebrates.
So... You were saying something about homosexuality not being natural?
I see your point, and no, I wouldn't accept that. Was trying to find a way to rebut his comment quickly is all. Thanks.
its just a name. I dont care if its Marriage, Coupling, what not.
Everyone deserves equals rights. End of story. End of line.
My problem is, by dictating what you can call it, for example "you're a gay couple, you are a UNION not a MARRIAGE", you are imposing, even if just by terminology a form of discrimination. You have chosen to be exclusionary by words
Ok, that's an excuse. Now i feel bad for you, not being able to enjoy pussycats.
It becomes a 'religious debate' because the arguments against homosexuality are (almost) invariably rooted in religious doctrine. I've read 51 pages of this thread so far, and haven't spotted a *single* argument against homosexuality that wasn't rooted in religion. There have been several which *claim* not to be rooted in religion, but even the most basic examination of the reasoning circles back around to 'because someone told me God said it was bad'.
Wait, if you are attracted to both sexes equally, how is deciding to share your life with one over the other NOT a choice?
I'm not saying the inherent attraction is a choice, I'm saying that if the inherent attraction is equal to both sexes, how is picking one over the other not a choice?
So what?
Why is this even news? Are all the racists going to become gay from using an Apple device?
What an absurd world we live in. America, land of the Dumb Ass.
Why is this even news? Are all the racists going to become gay from using an Apple device?
What an absurd world we live in. America, land of the Dumb Ass.
No, a NEW union requires a NEW word with the correct definition. Why not call all human beings "MEN"? I don't care what they call it either and they should be treated equally. Its just not a marriage because by definition, it does not fit.
I am in complete agreement with everything you said. I was simply playing devils advocate to those who speak in absolutes when it comes to choice of sexual partners.
As a straight man, I would be choosing to be with Megan or Lindsay. For someone who is attracted to both sexes, the choices might be Megan, Lindsay or Dave.
Decided. I did however discover I am also not into sex with two lipstick lesbians. (Way too much work)
This is the interesting thing. God can neither proven nor disproven using the scientific method. I can tell you, through my experiences, which again I can Keith prove not disprove through scientific methods, as it is my own anecdote, that I have felt His presence, and I have gotten answers to prayers.
As an engineer, I have tried to prove His existence, and I cannot using physical tools that I can show to you as my testimony, which is all I have. I can, however, tell you the method I used: Study of scriptures and prayer. I then came to the conclusion that He proves to each individual that asks in a personal manner.
In my experience, He is a God of love, patience (especially in dealing with me), and wants me to help the world be a better place. Could He do it? Sure, but what would I learn from that?
One quick story that I like: a man, after dying asks God a question, "Father, you see everything, and you saw the wars, mistreatment of others, and famines, and you had the power to stop it. Why didn't you?" God looks at the man, smiles, and says, "Son, I gave you a brain, compassion, the knowledge of right and wrong, and he power to choose. Why didn't you do your part to end these?"
I hope that this dialog has at least given you a perspective on me and that although we see hints differently, there are reasons for my beliefs.
Why does it matter? Religion is a choice, too. What tradition is there here in America of going into Churches and telling them what they can and cannot say, what attitudes they can and cannot have, what food they can and cannot eat and who they can and cannot marry?
Religious bigotry is a choice too... One can choose to be a bigot, or not.
So what if sexuality is or isn't a choice?
It seems that religious fundamentalists are so bloody insecure or unsure about the things they've been told to believe, due to the way in which most "devout" people fail to follow its tenets. So, out of desperation there's this burning need to force everyone who doesn't believe to pretend that they do just to make the devout feel less alone and confused by the fact that the world doesn't work the way some misguided bronze age yahoos drilled into their heads that it would for all perpetuity.
Well, I was going to reply, but your last statement is so absurd, its obviously a complete waste of time. (and the word is homosexuality, not hosexuality)
If you fall in love with a woman, marry her and remain faithful until the day you die, do you suddenly stop finding other women attractive?
Well i'll be a monkey's uncle....Maybe he would've been better off by not coming clean.
Now, its public, u'll never hear the end of it.. Not sure what do think of this, but well... anything's possible what Apple..
All i can say, is Tim stronger than I am. (do what u think with that piece of info) since i never tell the truth anyway
Last edited:
The distinction is that you can choose who to date or spend time with. You really can't choose who you're attracted to.
Do you ever choose to be attracted to someone? Specifically, is someone's attractiveness to you a conscious choice that you make?
But thats exactly my point. You refuse to allow the term Marriage to be used for two gay individuals who are doing, exactly the same thing that a straight couple is doing.
the union is the same. So you have to do one of two things for it to be about equality, and not exclusivity. You either allow the term marriage to apply to all couples. regardless of sexuality.
Or you throw out Marriage as a term entirely and everyone uses whatever new term you define.
by saying "no, you cannot be married, you can only be _____" you are setting up an arbitrary, discriminatory practice by exclusionary terminology.
Plain and simple that is exactly opposite of equality.
Tim Cook has affected more lives today in a positive way than you will ever do in your entire life. Giving LGBT teens/young people someone to look up to and not be afraid of who they are is incredibly powerful and absolutely worth applauding.
What's not to understand? It's because bisexuals are born bisexual without choosing to be attracted to both genders.
There was a perfect example of this a few years ago. A preacher went where gay marriage was being debated, introduced himself, and started reading a prepared speech. As he got to the end of it, he 'forgot' to change a mention of interracial marriage to gay marriage. At that point, he pointed out that he was, in fact, reading a fairly famous speech given by someone who had been arguing *against* interracial marriage. He then went on to let the people who up until moments before had been murmuring in approval, just how ashamed of themselves they should be.
And 50+ years ago, it would have been defined as a formally recognized union of a man and woman of the same race
I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that the dictionary is not static and that language and culture are highly fluid. Pick up a dictionary from 100 years ago and even the most closed minded of people today would be offended by some of the entries they would see.
Yea, I guess its sad. Pretty soon it will be a marriage will be:
1 man, 1 woman, 2 goats
or
2 men, 1 woman
or
2 women and one man
or
maybe we can let parents marry children, or sisters and brothers marry.
When does it end?
Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Just call one man and one man something else and give them 100% rights guaranteed. (if that was the real agenda)
- Status