The CEO continues to pick and choose parts of the liberal agenda that suit him. This issue he strongly supports, but child slave labor in third world countries isn't a significant enough issue for him to fight as CEO of the world's largest tech company, aside from paying a bit of lip service. If only those kids were fighting for marriage equality instead of fair pay and humane treatment.
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.
U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, the world had a very different idea of marriage back then with dowrys and whatnot. In some parts of the world that is still the case. If you recall, though, Jesus spoke to the people of that time as well. Remember when he speaks about the hardness of their hearts, in regards to divorce? God's marriage is holy, sublime, a reflection of his covenant with Israel.
There's a whole different kind of marriage in the Bible though, brother. The mystical bride of Christ, the Church. Paul says that a Christian husband should lay down his life like Christ lays down his life for the Church.
----------
On that note, congratulations on your 100 posts. It's quite the privilege isn't it.
There is a larger point here that is being overlooked and that is the discussion of the purpose of the Law. The Law was meant to show man his need for a savior. Reading the Law in its entirety, everything one had to do in order to fully comply with it, the impossibility of keeping said Law is clear. The Law was not ours to fulfill but Christ's. I'll cite Matthew 5:17 for this part.
God's rules have not changed, the rights and wrongs. The tenets of right and wrong still apply, they were there BEFORE the Law. It was wrong to murder then, it is wrong to murder now. Just as it was wrong to rape in those days. I'll cite Deuteronomy 22:2527 for you here. The punishment for the man committing the rape being death if read correctly.
Many of the things I've seen cited in this thread as being OK by the Old Testament are simply incorrect. Polygamy being one I saw mentioned. It was never God's intention for marriage (or anything else he created) to be abused or misused in this way. These things, as all of the world's ills these days, are the direct result of the introduction of sin in His creation.
I have yet to see where some people would be harmed by the inclusion of same sex marriage. I mean no one has brought up a truly cogent argument showing the harm that would be done by same sex marriage in an area where current marital law works as intended. The civil rights aspect is one aspect, and as I said the religious aspect can in itself be divided amongst many religions. I don't have a better solution than that, as it allows various churches to maintain their own measure of control over their own domains.
I'm going to let this one go, as I don't want to get into every negative detail wrought by various forms of marriage over the centuries and compare to what could happen. It's too big of a topic.
Since this references specific information, would you happen to have a link to any of these reference examples? I'm genuinely unfamiliar with them.
I am incredibly appalled at the ignorance, hatred and bashing that is in this thread. It's even worse when you consider all the up votes for the above.
I can only wonder why such people feel a need to post such on a board devoted to all things Apple. A company whose CEO is a gay man. It seems there is a lot of hypocrisy out there.
Tell me this. Why is it ok to buy an iPhone, iPad, iMac, or other Apple device when it's not ok to hire a gay person? I honestly don't understand.
I can only wonder why such people feel a need to post such on a board devoted to all things Apple. A company whose CEO is a gay man. It seems there is a lot of hypocrisy out there.
Tell me this. Why is it ok to buy an iPhone, iPad, iMac, or other Apple device when it's not ok to hire a gay person? I honestly don't understand.
There's clearly no point speaking to you.... Yep the 2000 year old book should flushed...
The problem as I see it is that the current marital law is intended, precisely for the union of one man and one woman. Any changes to the law will still not take into account the innumerable, complimentary benefits of a one-man one-woman union (which I will refrain from going into here) that homosexual unions may attempt but not achieve in effect. There is indeed the problem of civil rights but as a society, I think it is fair to say we should all be concerned, first and foremost with the individuals that come after us to continue our society. It is this subgroup of society which I would be most concerned with regarding any detrimental effect from same-sex marriage.
It's the thought that counts. I also like to argue.
Certainly, this study just came out of Canada in the journal Review of the Economics of the Household. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall, nothing I can do about that, but you can probably find some analysis of the study elsewhere. The study has two benefits that other studies have not: it has a large population sample (20% of the Canadian census) and of course same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. To quote the abstract: "Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons."
----------
I was so looking forward to our conversation.
And yet you keep going back to the old testament when it comes to issues you don't like. Including Homosexuality.
The irony is you cherry picking and quoting surveyed "studies" that support your unjustified and prejudiced claims without the pertinent information necessary in determining if the survey's are statistically significant based on negative or positive correlations among numerous necessary variables (and as a psychologist survey's are the worst form of statistical analysis). Income level, race, gender, family structure(s), and numerous other variables are necessary in determining positive and negative correlations to support an objective hypothesis in lieu of jumping to inaccurate conclusions. It's boorish when one acts smugly online, using religious dogma to justify your intolerance and ignorance.
I've only read a few of your lengthy comments and diatribe, and know you are absolutely fishing for arguments by soliciting people who have not directly addressed you with personal insults and ridiculous arguments. I'm taking the bait for this one comment, then placing you on my ignore list (making you the second person to make it, congrats).
So heterosexual marriages that do not procreate are thus null and void in your opinion? This is the only difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, period.
You may benefit from researching respected scientific studies on this matter; countless times children raised by homosexual parents perform much better scholastically, are extremely well adjusted and tend to be more precocious at an earlier age than their counterparts. It doesn't help when bigots such as yourself teach their children intolerance and hatred, creating a hostile environment for other children to learn and mature.
Last edited:
Religion is nothing more than a tool of mass control, all it ever was and all it ever will be. It was also used to explain things that can't be explained. It is a intellectual slaveholder.
There is a reason why religion is starting to die off in the first world, Sadly we won't see it totally fade out in our life times, but we can hope.
The only places religion is getting more popular are third world countries.
----------
Now that's what happened with lots of people I know, I was brought up in Catholic family, but realized it was all ******** by the time I was 10.
When I have kids, Ill be keeping away from all that silly stuff.
Wow, so you read the study already and immediately found it to be weak and flawed in every way? Who's jumping to conclusions? I was simply responding to the fellow above who asked me for a reference.
Peace.
I don't have to read the full study to know basing your opinion(s) on one survey in your instance is a failure from step one. If you fail to understand why, then you do not understand the very nature of scientific studies and analyses.
Good luck with that
There are many with you. And within a generation, the vocal haters will be diminished enough in numbers that they'll retreat into their closed little communities and be the true outliers of society, as they are already fast on the track to becoming.
----------
Okay, let's stop talking in hyperbole here. What exactly do you think LGBT equality is going to do that brings down modern civilization, and exactly how much money do you want to stake on your bet? Let's be in touch so I can give you instructions on how I want my winnings wired to me.
This all-knowing bluster and doom and gloom got old a few thousand years ago.
It's not a "behaviour", it's genetic, biological. If it's a "behaviour" thus defined by action (nature), then...
When did you decide to be "straight"?
I really don't think you need the "it's genetic, biological" argument.
Even if it's simply a behavior/choice one would still need to justify outlawing a behavior/choice between two consenting adults that causes no harm to anyone else.
I'm under the impression that in the U.S. we value freedom. There needs to be a compelling argument to take away one's freedom whether it's in regards to an inborn trait or one we picked up just because we wanted to.
There isn't proof that it isn't either. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that it's something early in the embryonic development that leads to homosexuality (Low levels of some histone or something along those lines.), but either way, I think the end result is that it isn't a matter of choice for the individual.
This is what makes me think it may not be genetic (or at least not entirely). Even if it does offer an advantage to the population, it's not like those genes can be passed down. Homosexuality would have been weeded out by natural selection a long time ago if it was completely genetic. It does occur often enough in nature that I don't think it's psychological or learned behavior either. Hence my gut feeling that it's something during development. Or perhaps a very complex interaction of genes
At the end of the day though, the cause doesn't matter. They are people after all who just want to live their lives like the rest of us. We don't go telling sterile heterosexual people that they can't marry, so the "biological" reasoning that some religious folks (including my own parents) spout is a load of bull.
Where did I state taking anyone's freedom away? If you don't support equality among a democracy, then you do not believe in actual freedom. I support equality and believe if the United States wishes to show the world that we can be civilized, we need to pass laws protecting those who are discriminated against and cannot protect themselves. Permitting employers to reject qualified candidates based on their sexual orientation in addition to gender, race, physical handicaps, etc displays hypocrisy. This is not about religion, it is about intolerance. Stating homosexuality is a behaviour/act does neglect to take into account that it is a behaviour based on genetic disposition much like heterosexuality.
Last edited:
There is a such thing as an innate behavior. I would refer to my heterosexuality as such
My innate behavior is homosexually based as I was born gay. It seems some are arguing over semantics and for the sake of arguing.
To be clear, I am a gay man who has worked to help others who face inequality, may it be gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. I've never been sexually attracted to the opposite sex, I've never chosen to sleep with a woman, nor am I inclined in doing such. Why? Because I am gay, just as you are straight.
Behaviour is a byproduct of our nature, not an isolated variable/construct. It is a reflex, if you will, to our innate sexuality, based on our own individual genetic proclivity regarding physical attraction towards a particular gender. Behaviour is a variable, it cannot exist in a vacuum, our behaviour in this instance is based on an innate sexual desire we do not control or chose.
Last edited:
You use the term 'natural marriage', when gay marriage is natural as well. Or is it natural only if 90% of the population deems it so!? There is absolutely no harm being brought up by game marriage so let them get married and we can all move on to focus on more important issues.
1. Your soul.
2. Jesus, but Jesus did not come to the world to judge while he was in the world, he came to save mankind and not to judge. In Jesus second coming, he will be the judge and people will be accountable to him. It's easy for a person to falsely derive contradiction from this, but it isn't so. Separate issues relating to separate times