Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why not? Commit to each other and stay together.

You could say the exact same thing about hetero couples.

Oh, you want to compel others to give special treatment to the pair.

What? Where do you see special rights? They want equal rights. Meaning they want the same exact right that you have - the right to marry the person they choose.


Why? It's not like they're going to reproduce together. See my prior post explaining "marriage"; you seem confused about the purpose of the institution.

No, you are the one who seems to be confused about the institution of marriage.

There are TONS of hetero couple that are unable to have children, are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to get married?

There are TONS of hetero couple that are able to have children, but they choose not to. Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to get married either?

Marriage historically was always a business union. I don't know where you got the idea that it's exclusively for producing children, because that's not and has never been what marriage is.

Heck, even if you look at the standard totally religious wedding vows, nowhere does it say that marriage is about producing children.

http://www.unionoflove.com/vows/stdvow.html

And on top of that yet again, we're discussing LEGAL marriage here, not religious marriage. If your church doesn't want to perform gay marriages, then it doesn't have to! If you personally don't want to recognize gay marriages as being legitimate, then you don't have to! All we're talking about here is the LEGAL side of marriage, things like having the law consider your husband or wife to be your next of kin who gets to make your medical decisions if you're incapacitated, etc.

Frankly, if you believe in marriage as an institution, and as a religious union, and as a small government issue, then you should want to get government out of the role of declaring marriages altogether. Do you really want the government to have authority over who you can choose to marry? Do you really want the government to have the power to dictate to your church who they are and are not allowed to wed? Government should ONLY have the power to declare any two adults as being in a legal domestic partnership, be they a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple. The freedom to decide who is and isn't recognized as being legitimately married should be left up to you as an individual, and left up to the individual churches and religious organizations.
 
I hope they'll make a new section on the iTMS, so I can easily avoid those apps and not get my iTunes cluttered with an "election app of the week" every week...

(don't worry, I'll vote)

So it's like a version of Twitter that only tells you who Mitt Romney's running mate is. Perfect!

That was my first thought too! ;)
 
What about bigamist's rights!? :rolleyes:

Personally, in my opinion, adults should be free to do whatever they choose as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights. Personally I'm not very religious, but the bible is jam packed with bigamy, and it's 100% a proper union according to the bible. So whether you're secular or Jewish or Christian or Muslim, I don't see anyway that you could rightfully tell other people that they aren't allowed to marry multiple partners. Do you believe in small government and personal freedoms? Do you believe in the bible? I'm a totally monogamous person myself, but I (and we) have no right to tell other adults they don't have the right to do what they want to do as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.
 
You must have gone to Reverend Wright's church. Ha, sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm an equal opportunity SOB.

Never! I love my country dearly, yet at times its inhabitants make me sick. We live in a world where people think religion depicts our present. Which I don't believe is the case. I believe there is a higher power than us all, but I can't say I can commit to a religion. I think religions were man-made to divide us further and no one can honestly say what "God" intended. The Bible is a book with ink, that could have been filtered/altered, no one knows.

So many people worry about the wrong things and it's sad to think that they will teach their children what they were taught and then their children will teach their children. . . . It's just a cycle that's never ending.

It isn't equal if it's sometimes. . . .
 
before obama kids could stay on parents policies until 26 regardless of being in school or not...

nope!

----------

I don't know how anyone can vote for Obama. Well, I do. They don't pay attention to anything hes done and listen to main stream media to get their news.

Obama violated the War Powers Act in Libya. Told congress to take a hike when they asked for a declaration of war. They are now providing "non-lethal" aid to the Syrians as well.

Obama supports a ton of Bush's policies. Extended the Patriot act, kept gitmo open (after he said he'd close it), kept the tax cuts, expanded warfare in the middle east and provided bailouts to the rich on wall street.

Obama tramples on civil liberties by signing the NDAA (4th amendment violation), Trespass Bill (1st amendment), and other legislation.

How about Obama claiming "executive privilege" and helping to cover up operation fast and furious? He protected Eric Holder after he lost track of guns in Mexico, which lead to American border patrol guards being killed.

Obama has been an utter failure. Romney would be just as bad. The media is in both of their pockets and the biggest contributor to both Romney and Obama is Goldman Sachs. Wake up people. They are both the same person.

I'll be writing in Ron Paul or voting for Gary Johnson this fall. No more voting for the political cults known as the republican and democratic parties.

Your state wouldn't have an auto industry if Romney was in Charge.

----------

Obama is a MAC and Romney is a PC. End of discussion! :rolleyes:
 
Right, it's illegal right now (well at least it was before the government messed with it), so don't mess with it. There were gay people when the constitution was written. Why didn't they write it in then?

You want to be gay? fine, but don't taint the definition of marriage.

You want to murder a baby? Well that's not okay, don't have sex if you aren't willing to accept the risks.

Awesome and thank you for writing this!!
 
Since roads build great businesses, I'm going to kick back and wait for my big CEO checks to arrive. After all, they didn't build it, we did.

Who said the roads "build great businesses"? If you have a business you have infrastructure in place that helps your business operate.

The roads are already there thanks to the government. If you think businesses have not benefitted by government created infrastructure I suggest taking a look at the how the interstate highway system that President Eisenhower championed changed the economic landscape.

Bridges, tunnels, internet? How about the U.S. transcontinental railroad?

Aren't those examples of how infrastructure benefits all, including business?
 
Why cast them aside? In fact, if you're against abortion, I'm surprised you're also against homosexuals. Because who has fewer abortions than homosexuals? You'd think you'd make natural allies. Here's a whole group of people guaranteed to never have an abortion, and you're just casting them aside! I'll never understand it.



If the 15-year-old is in love with another girl, I don't understand why it's my job (or worse, the government's job) to stop it. Since when am I/the government an arbitrator of others' love?



I was hoping it wouldn't come to this....

A fetus isn't a child. In fact, if anything, it's a parasite. It thrives off the mother, stealing nutrients from her body for the good of itself and nothing else. Besides, why is this fetus so much better than an ant on the kitchen floor you'd squish without a moment's hesitation?

What do you call a teenager living off his parents while posting pro liberal bs?
 
What about bigamist's rights!? :rolleyes:

Very interesting point.

You don't need to be married to have a child and be responsible for it, so it's can be said marriage is no longer about children. People had sex before religion made it taboo, so it's not about sex.

At this moment in history, is there any purpose to marriage beside financial benefits? Is marriage, at it's core, STILL just a business deal?

What is the purpose of marriage?
 
Well, you see, we have this concept we call "marriage": a would-be procreative pair refrains from reproduction until they have committed to mutual permanent live-in support of their offspring. The whole reproduction thing just generally doesn't work so well without the commitment, nor with a pair utterly incapable of procreating together.

Wow!
1) So despite being one of the most widely distributed species on earth, you believe human population growth was not really measurable until the advent of "marriage contracts" or marriage sanctified by religion?
2) The very common European incidence of having and raising children as a couple without being married doesn't work?
3) You have somehow failed to see examples and data demonstrating adoptive lesbian and gay parents are equals to heterosexual parents in raising human offspring to adulthood?
4) You have no one in your circle who either is, or is raising a really well adjusted human being from a "broken marriage," or single parent?

I think your research may be incomplete.
 
Last edited:
Yeah because the last three Republican presidents brought us 3 seperate recessions and 3 wars, the largest gap of income equality, sounds like the winning team to me, if you want go 3rd world developing nation vote republican.

Those democratic presidents are great!

Outspent Bush in his first two years than Bush did in 8
Socialist healthcare system
Clinton getting blown in his office and lies about it
Hillary traveling the world accomplishing nothing but being the first secretary of state to travel a lot
Michelle spending millions of dollars in tax money to go shopping in London
Taxing small business
The economy has gone nowhere in 4 years
 
Those democratic presidents are great!

Outspent Bush in his first two years than Bush did in 8
Socialist healthcare system
Clinton getting blown in his office and lies about it
Hillary traveling the world accomplishing nothing but being the first secretary of state to travel a lot
Michelle spending millions of dollars in tax money to go shopping in London
Taxing small business
The economy has gone nowhere in 4 years

Can you cite your sources for this information?

Besides the Clinton deal, I question the accuracy of these statements.
 
Young Passion

This. As I grew up in London, socialized medicine (in a socialized Democracy, it is NOT communism/Marxism, what a hoot) does work. However, we have corporations such as health insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and many lobbyists striving to keep a multi-billion dollar industry going.

Also, we're one of the few first world nations that spend more than half their federal income on our military... for oil...

Lastly, as a diabetic since 12 (now 35), I take excellent care of myself (test 12-15 or more times a day, 10-12 shots of insulin depending on my BG, I run/weight train and compete). However, as I have friends in the pharmaceutical industry (Merck, J&J to name a few), I hear stories all the time on how money is spent on R&D for treatments and very little for cures. This is a business model, as a pharm company will make more money off of a lifetime of medications and supplies than even one [expensive] cure. As a diabetic, I pay $500/month for health insurance with Blue Cross Excellus and I'm in great shape (A1C's average ~5.5, which is non-diabetic levels) and yet with full coverage I have to fight with Blue Cross on simple prescription coverage for insulin (something I take daily since 12) to other smaller issues that cost me time and money. They are trained to wear you down, but I'm like a dog with a bone and eventually I will win what I rightfully pay for every month.

Back in the U.K., I'm not spending a fortune on taxes for military spending, much of it goes towards healthcare and education - two area's that help create a stronger nation which benefits everyone. People in the U.S. are behind in their mentality, we live in a greedy, selfish country and refuse to look at the big picture. I am not speaking about handouts, people should work for what they need. However, when teachers are spending their own time and money in book exchanges for public schools as funding is consistently cut, when students are not given the attention and materials necessary to prepare them for college/higher education, how can we have a nation of employable citizens? If someone can go bankrupt from cancer, or can't afford hundreds of dollars a month for the treatment to live, how can a sick nation work? It's a misnomer that welfare and handouts are an issue, it's a small percentage and it's lessening as our country deepens into corporate debt. If we do not refocus our foreign relations, establish a green economy which would create more jobs in the U.S. while getting us off oil and tensions in the Middle East, feeding private sects such as Halliburton no bid contracts while Exxon/Mobil and other oil and gas companies make record profit; if we do not refocus our spending on area's that matter such as education and healthcare, we're screwed. Plain and simple.

So how is having a business whose interests are making money off keeping people ill better than the so-called "evil government"? Note that corporations have BECOME our government in recent years, the lines between them are beyond blurred. Just examine what happened with a lack of proper regulation in our banking system. My father was an investment banker with Bear Stearns, I knew Greenspan and other game players through him. Derivatives, betting against defaults, short selling - to them it's a game of monopoly and it's with YOUR money. Goldman Sachs practically controls our Federal Reserve, my god they're selling bonds to us at three times their value and making a killing! Look what our system did to Iceland, one of the BEST government systems in banking, when the private banks convinced Iceland to privatize their system in 2008. In less than a year the country suffered the worst economic collapse in their history, and the players than came in and ripped them off made out with BILLIONS.

Watch "Inside Job", an amazing, eye opening documentary on what happened leading up to the financial crisis of 2008. Going all the way back to Reaganomics and the failed "Trickle Down" policies, it is amazing! All the headplayers of AIG/Goldman Sachs got out just before the shizz hit the fan. Bernanke sold his shares and made off with millions and was then appointed head of our Federal Reserve. He's a *** ****'ed crook! Worse yet, a lot of the old, white men (truth) that ran this nation (and world) into the ground for their own greed are now teaching at Columbia, Harvard, Yale and Brown while being paid thousands for lectures. Having almost gone into Investment Banking, following in my fathers footsteps, and he (being a Republican and myself a moderate) watched "Inside Job" together and we both were impressed with how spot on it was. It deserved that Oscar. Matt Damon narrated for free and put up his own money to support the film as his own brother lost his house. Amazing.

Haven't seen "Inside Job". I'm curious though if it mentions the role the government played in the sub-prime debacle? From what I've read the Government pushed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to accept loans from unqualified people that were almost guaranteed to default. The banks knowing these loans were toxic, chopped them up and sold them around the world as mortgage backed securities. When the loans did default the people were left holding the bag. It's been said the whole thing would have been avoided if it was law that people buying a home had to put 15% + downpayment. Personally, I think both Democrats and Republicans suck. I think I might flip a coin to see who I vote for.
 
Please don't use the term Socialist when you quite obviously haven't a clue what it means.

Do they teach ANYTHING in American schools these days?

Don't blame American schools - blame the right wing media. It's amazing how many people throw that word around and have absolutely no idea what it means.

It's embarrassing.
 
Where did I express opposition? Where did I advocate government being the arbitrator of love?

The moment you insisted it should be illegal for gays to marry.

I just don't want the girl getting into a predictable situation where she, at 15, is faced with the choice of murdering her own child.

So, if she's a lesbian, let her be a lesbian, and she'll never have to make that choice! What is so hard?

I just don't want to compel society to treat a couple as if they can reproduce when it is utterly obvious it's impossible for them to do so.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again-- marriage isn't about procreation. They DO NOT have to go hand in hand.

As a former fetus, I take offense at the notion. After my conception, there was no point where you could claim I changed from "parasite" to human. How insulting...

Hey, I was a fetus once too. No intentions to offend, just reporting the facts.

"Parasite: An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense." Is this not what a fetus does?
 
Haven't seen "Inside Job". I'm curious though if it mentions the role the government played in the sub-prime debacle? From what I've read the Government pushed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to accept loans from unqualified people that were almost guaranteed to default. The banks knowing these loans were toxic, chopped them up and sold them around the world as mortgage backed securities. When the loans did default the people were left holding the bag. It's been said the whole thing would have been avoided if it was law that people buying a home had to put 15% + downpayment. Personally, I think both Democrats and Republicans suck. I think I might flip a coin to see who I vote for.

I agree 100%! (and indeed, the government under Bush and Obama did do exactly that, and spot on about both party systems)

...what did you mean by "Young Passion"?
 
Don't blame American schools - blame the right wing media. It's amazing how many people throw that word around and have absolutely no idea what it means.

It's embarrassing.

You are correct about the media carrying the bulk of responsibility, but the No Child Left Behind Policies pretty much guaranteed that civics and social studies would get the short end of the stick. The more cynical would assert that was the real intent of that top-down decision, to create a generation of citizens who are clueless when it comes to political and economic systems as well as the founding principles of the US.
 
Don't blame American schools - blame the right wing media. It's amazing how many people throw that word around and have absolutely no idea what it means.

It's embarrassing.

I reckon those who throw the "s-word" around intend it to mean "anything government owned and operated." In that case, these people:

1) should have to pay tolls on every road they ever travel on
2) should not be able to put their children in public schools
3) should not be allowed to use post offices
4) should not be allowed to report crimes to police

And the list goes on....
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.