or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle - Page 31

post #1201 of 1350
I respectfully disagree. This may be your interpretation but for most, marriage (gay or straight) is most certainly about love. It's the ability to declare to the world that you love someone so much that you are willing to make a life-long commitment to him... to say your love is strong enough that despite whatever trials there will be in the relationship, you have enough faith that your love will help you overcome, that you wish to go beyond just simply being in a relationship.

I fully understand the practical side of marriage but if it were about being practical, allowing for civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage would be enough. For me, it wouldn't be and I'm lucky to be Canadian because here, the debate is over.

Based on your definition/interpretation, we'd have this type of scenario:
Man gets on his knees and proposes to his long time partner. (S)he begins to tear up as (s)he says, "Yes, Yes, Yes I'll marry you. Yes, I can finally be covered by your medical plan and have all the legal benefits of marriage! Sob, sob."

How romantic. Can you tell me again how gay marriage wouldn't be about love?

Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Gay marriage is not about love. You can have love without legal recognition. Gay marriage is about equal treatment, it's about medical insurance, and spouse benefits and all those little legal rights and assumptions that straight people get as soon as they're married.

In the near term, pseudo-marriage arrangements will spread to all states. This must happen, because it's in the interest of businesses and big money (remember the golden rule). Later, votes such as proposition 8 will be overturned (might take 10 years or so) and all states (and later most countries) will have gay marriage.
post #1202 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

I respectfully disagree. This may be your interpretation but for most, marriage (gay or straight) is most certainly about love. It's the ability to declare to the world that you love someone so much that you are willing to make a life-long commitment to him... to say your love is strong enough that despite whatever trials there will be in the relationship, you have enough faith that your love will help you overcome, that you wish to go beyond just simply being in a relationship.

I fully understand the practical side of marriage but if it were about being practical, allowing for civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage would be enough. For me, it wouldn't be and I'm lucky to be Canadian because here, the debate is over.

Based on your definition/interpretation, we'd have this type of scenario:
Man gets on his knees and proposes to his long time partner. (S)he begins to tear up as (s)he says, "Yes, Yes, Yes I'll marry you. Yes, I can finally be covered by your medical plan and have all the legal benefits of marriage! Sob, sob."

How romantic. Can you tell me again how gay marriage wouldn't be about love?

Men don't get on their knees, they get on one knee. Then they move in together. That's love. At least that's what I did. They can go to the priest, rabbi, other cleric or Elvis impersonator and have a big ceremony to announce to the world. We did that 6 months later. Gays and Lesbians in most countries of the world can find a cleric of some denomination who will marry them. That's still true in California as well.

The only thing that prop 8 changes, is the legal recognition by the state. And that does not relate in any way to romance. That relates to medical plans, to default wills, to automatic assumption of fatherhood and to legal powers. That's what gays in California are missing.

Civil unions do cover most bases. They don't really fall short. The fear is that they will become 2nd class, and that not all the benefits will be given to people joined in civil unions. The other, more political side, is that giving gays a "different" definition is some kind of exclusion.
post #1203 of 1350
I see your point. My point is that by denying homosexuals the right to use the term marriage diminishes the emotional value of the union, not in the eyes of the couple but in the eyes of the rest of society. Because civil unions grant legal equality, the one thing missing is the spiritual and emotional significance of marriage.

I disagree that (gay) marriage is not about love but for everything else, we're on the same page. It is definitely an issue of equality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Men don't get on their knees, they get on one knee. Then they move in together. That's love. At least that's what I did. They can go to the priest, rabbi, other cleric or Elvis impersonator and have a big ceremony to announce to the world. We did that 6 months later. Gays and Lesbians in most countries of the world can find a cleric of some denomination who will marry them. That's still true in California as well.

The only thing that prop 8 changes, is the legal recognition by the state. And that does not relate in any way to romance. That relates to medical plans, to default wills, to automatic assumption of fatherhood and to legal powers. That's what gays in California are missing.

Civil unions do cover most bases. They don't really fall short. The fear is that they will become 2nd class, and that not all the benefits will be given to people joined in civil unions. The other, more political side, is that giving gays a "different" definition is some kind of exclusion.
post #1204 of 1350
You have an apple and an orange. You want to always refer to an orange as an apple. I do not object. You then want ME to always refer to an orange as an apple. I object. An orange is not an apple.
post #1205 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

You have an apple and an orange. You want to always refer to an orange as an apple. I do not object. You then want ME to always refer to an orange as an apple. I object. An orange is not an apple.

The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.

The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.

I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."

Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"

But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."

Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.
post #1206 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.

The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.

I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."

Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"

But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."

Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.

This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.
Man and a Woman= Marriage
two same sex= something else. Should be equal to Marriage but is not "marriage"
post #1207 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.

Wrong. Florida banned civil unions with their amendment 2, which states: Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1208 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

This is a bait and switch tactic. No one is saying Domestic partner laws should Not be passed,AND in most places they already have been.
Man and a Woman= Marriage
two same sex= something else. Should be equal to Marriage but is not "marriage"

Sounds good, but assuming you're an American, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate but equal" concept.
post #1209 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Sounds good, but assuming you're an American, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate but equal" concept.

Exactly. Seperate but equal did not work, because the only reason to keep things seperate is because they are NOT equal.

It is kind of disingenuous to say "you can't have what we have--but its ok, it doesn't matter." If you believe certain people don't deserve equal rights, be honest and say it
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #1210 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Wrong. Florida banned civil unions with their amendment 2, which states: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Yes, not recognizing certain marriages (or its substantial equivalent) is an important part of the proposition that has unfortunately been obfuscated in the discussion.

I think the main problem is that the consequences of such proposals for same sex couples seem too complex or futile to a large part of the general public.
Prop 8 operates in indirect ways.
Obfuscation.

Off topic:
I have the impression that conservative propositions on same sex marriage, abortion and other contentious issues, have actually worked against the Republicans in the elections.
For many Americans, their views on issues like abortion will determine their vote, over most or all other issues.
These propositions (partly) detach the subject from the political party that is traditionally associated with it.
Prop 8 gave people a chance to vote for Obama while still expressing their conservative allegiance through their vote on same sex marriage.
I think that this system of putting propositions on the ballot creates some of the effects of a multiple-party-system. Voting on issues more then on heads.
So, despite the direct negative outcome, there's a positive aspect to them.
post #1211 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

Exactly. Seperate but equal did not work, because the only reason to keep things seperate is because they are NOT equal.

It is kind of disingenuous to say "you can't have what we have--but its ok, it doesn't matter." If you believe certain people don't deserve equal rights, be honest and say it

Assuming you're of this world, I think your country has had some bad experience with the applications of the "separate and not equal" concept.
post #1212 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

The issue is not what YOU call it, or what I call it, or what canucklehead calls it.

The issue is the government, employers, hospitals, banks and schools. And they had better treat the gay permanent relationship the same as the old-fashioned kind of permanent relationship.

I'll give you just one example of why this is important. Suppose my wife (God forbid) passes out. I rush her to the emergency room. I check her in, the doctor looks at her, monitors her heart, and says: "She needs emergency surgery". I say, "OK. I'll sign the form."

Now let's take the "other" case. It also begins with a woman passing out, but now she's brought into the hospital by her girlfriend/life partner/civil unionist/orange. They get to the emergency room and the nurse says, "who are you?" So "orange" says, "I'm her life partner". So the nurse says, "Hmmm, OK. I'll just write down that you found her. Does she have medical insurance?" Anyway, the doctors examine her, and ask Orange, "you're her friend, right? Do you have the phone number of a family member?" So she says, "I'm her life partner, she would want you to tell me!" So the doctor says, "Hospital policy is that we only discuss her condition with next of kin. Do you have her parents' phone number?"

But Orange and the patient don't just live together. They went to a particularly liberal priest who married them, but knowing that this has not force in the state of California, they also made a contract that lists essentially all the regular things that straight couples have. So now Orange says, "We have a contract that gives me power of attorney in situations like this". So the doctor says, "Hey, don't give this to me, I am not a lawyer. Give this to the nurse at the desk, and the hospital lawyer will look at it in the morning. For now, I need her parents' phone number, because there's a big decision to make."

Is this sufficiently oranges-to-oranges for you? BTW: If you think this is far-fetched, it's not. Conversations like this actually take place lots of times, and the general situation, of having to put your spouse in the hospital and sign for some medical treatment when they're incapacitated,
that awaits all of us. The only way out is to be so incapacitated by the time that happens, that it will be left to your children.


That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.

Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!
post #1213 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.

Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!

I am not from the US, so I haven't lost anything. Single people don't have someone obvious to look after them. That's what single means. People with marriage or civil unions do. It's not a straw man (or dog) argument.
post #1214 of 1350
You can't have what we have because it is Morally wrong.

Oh, and by the way I am a Muslim.
post #1215 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!

I'd like to hear why you think government controled marriage for heterosexual couples is a right. By your arguments, this should only be between your god/church.

I also wonder if you think interracial marriage is okay when the god clearly made separate races of people. At least, that is was the religious argument for why interracial marriage is morally wrong and should not be recognized. How may years after the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case did it take before you finally accepted interracial marriage as acceptable? Or haven't you?

What is moral and sacred about marriage is divorce and adultery can occur so easily? I believe that each crime is punishable by stoning, according to the bible. The bible has a lot more to say about divorce than it does about homosexuality. Have you ever had friends that committed adultery or got divorced? Did you spit in their face and sold them for their actions when you found out?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1216 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Oh, and by the way I am a Muslim.

Watch out, many Americans seem to be taught (through their Christian church?) that being Muslim equals being an extremist who is promotes terrorism. Anecdotally speaking, I find that it's quite prolific in our Red states, but overall is fairly common among lower financial class Christian Republicans.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1217 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Watch out, many Americans seem to be taught (through their Christian church?) that being Muslim equals being an extremist who is promotes terrorism. Anecdotally speaking, I find that it's quite prolific in our Red states, but overall is fairly common among lower financial class Christian Republicans.

I have not found that to be true. Christians and Muslims have much in common in regards to their beliefs. Like...Gay Marriage.
post #1218 of 1350
Same argument could have been previously used when it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. Fact is, progess is progress and fight it all you want. Gay marriage WILL happen in the US. Thanks to Prop 8, more people are standing up for their rights and for equality than ever before and by denying it in three additional states will ultimately help allow it in the entire country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

You have an apple and an orange. You want to always refer to an orange as an apple. I do not object. You then want ME to always refer to an orange as an apple. I object. An orange is not an apple.
post #1219 of 1350
Haha. You're in such denial, it's actually funny. Good thing you're old and you might not see the day when it happens but it will happen.

The passing of Prop 8 has only acted to bring people together in support of gay marriage. The less vocal minority is now saying it's time for a change. The battle may have been lost but the war is far from over. The next generation coming up mostly don't know what all the fuss is about and gay marriage will become legal - and not just in individual states.

Deny it all you want. It is going to happen in the US.

You can either live and let live or continue believing that "All animals are created equal. But some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell, Animal Farm

You hold the Good Book so dear to your heart yet you don't understand the message. Someone else suggested that to "protect the sanctity of marriage" perhaps we make divorce illegal too. Maybe if that were the case, people will stop rushing into marriage like it was disposable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

That is a straw dog argument. It completely ignores single people, who may, or may NOT have living family to even ask. All you really care about is getting your way concerning gay marriage, and you lost. What's more, you will continue to lose, because the majority of the people in the US do NOT support gay marriage. Now you come with this stupid argument.

Gay marriage is NOT a right, get over it!
post #1220 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'd like to hear why you think government controled marriage for heterosexual couples is a right. By your arguments, this should only be between your god/church.

I also wonder if you think interracial marriage is okay when the god clearly made separate races of people. At least, that is was the religious argument for why interracial marriage is morally wrong and should not be recognized. How may years after the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case did it take before you finally accepted interracial marriage as acceptable? Or haven't you?

What is moral and sacred about marriage is divorce and adultery can occur so easily? I believe that each crime is punishable by stoning, according to the bible. The bible has a lot more to say about divorce than it does about homosexuality. Have you ever had friends that committed adultery or got divorced? Did you spit in their face and sold them for their actions when you found out?


Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.
post #1221 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.

First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.

Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up again—and it will—it won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.

Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.

Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1222 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.

Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up againand it willit won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.

Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.

Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.

Interracial marriages are not the subject here, gay marriages are. I oppose gay marriage, just like the majority in this country. If you don't accept that, then you're lying to yourself.
post #1223 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Interracial marriages are not the subject here, gay marriages are. I oppose gay marriage, just like the majority in this country. If you don't accept that, then you're lying to yourself.

I accept it as it currently stands, but I also accept that progress is not stopped by a short term roadblock, just delayed a little.BTW, I care about California law and homosexual marriage as much I care about your rights to Social Security, freedom of speech, religion, etc. Meaning, I care only about the essence of civil rights and the freedoms from church and state that this country was founded on, but I have no personal stake in any of it so it's quite impossible for me to get angry about it.

As for religious feelings of gay marriages today and interracial marriages of 40+ years ago, there are extensive comparisons on the subject. Since you would have been an adult around my age back then I thought you could shed some light on your feelings on that situation. I think by exploring this subject it may show you that no matter how much you try to strip people of basic civil rights, even to the point of considering other human beings as chattel, eventually humanity will prevail when the fear and hatred subside. it's not a fast process, but it is a process that will ultimately prevail, whether you accept it or not. Assuming you live to the median age for adult male in the US, I think you'll see the the law changed in California, however you probably won't see it made nationwide. For your sake, I hope you don't see either of these come to fruition in your lifetime.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1224 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.

Give it up zinfella. I'm on your side, but you will never win here. You know why?

One is only able to understand something when one is whiling to take responsible for that very thing. Do you think people who support gay marriage are taking responsibility for our future, our children, our society? Arguing with someone like that is pointless, or worst, you are giving them power by doing so.

Fact is, the enemy is something that was imported into the US after World War 2, Phycology. Phycology is in the business of destruction, the decline of our civilization in the US stared at that very moment. All one needs do is take a look at the statistics. Education has been on a decline curve ever since, so has morality, so has freedom and so on.

You are trying to communicate with people who have been indoctrinated into this Cult. Argue not with the insane for that only ads fuel to the insanity. Instead take action to destroy the enemy and liberate our country for this death machine called Phycology.
post #1225 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

[...]
Fact is, the enemy is something that was imported into the US after World War 2, Phycology. Phycology is in the business of destruction, the decline of our civilization in the US stared at that very moment.
[...]
Instead take action to destroy the enemy and liberate our country for this death machine called Phycology.


phy·col·o·gy |fīˈkäləjē|
noun
— the branch of botany concerned with seaweeds and other algae.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1226 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I accept it as it currently stands, but I also accept that progress is not stopped by a short term roadblock, just delayed a little.BTW, I care about California law and homosexual marriage as much I care about your rights to Social Security, freedom of speech, religion, etc. Meaning, I care only about the essence of civil rights and the freedoms from church and state that this country was founded on, but I have no personal stake in any of it so it's quite impossible for me to get angry about it.

As for religious feelings of gay marriages today and interracial marriages of 40+ years ago, there are extensive comparisons on the subject. Since you would have been an adult around my age back then I thought you could shed some light on your feelings on that situation. I think by exploring this subject it may show you that no matter how much you try to strip people of basic civil rights, even to the point of considering other human beings as chattel, eventually humanity will prevail when the fear and hatred subside. it's not a fast process, but it is a process that will ultimately prevail, whether you accept it or not. Assuming you live to the median age for adult male in the US, I think you'll see the the law changed in California, however you probably won't see it made nationwide. For your sake, I hope you don't see either of these come to fruition in your lifetime.

I oppose gay marriage, I'm not obsessed by it. You completely misread me.
post #1227 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you.

One thing that it says about me is that I don't suffer elitists well at all, and you're an elitist. You've made some wild assumptions about me, with nothing to support them, beyond your imagination. Not only did you reveal an utter contempt for religion, but you don't want anyone else to see anything positive about it.

You probably have no military service on your record, and you probably abhor the military anyway, like a good little liberal. Your life experience is not near what you think it is, take my word for it. You're probably a supporter of abortion, and I always wish that such people had mothers that practiced it.
post #1228 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


phy·col·o·gy |fīˈkäləjē|
noun
the branch of botany concerned with seaweeds and other algae.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Don't mock zinfella's God!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #1229 of 1350
I personally don't think religion is the problem. I think it's the people controlling the religions that's the problem. There's a lot of positive that religions teach, yet somehow, many of the people who consider themselves religious are the most intolerant and hateful people who exist.

It is people who have chosen to interpret the bible in a way to suit their own view of morality... and yes, it goes both ways. I, as a gay man, choose to interpret the bible in terms of love, tolerance and understanding... to do unto others as you'd have done unto you. Unless it hurts others, live and let live.

Gay marriage doesn't hurt heterosexuals but it gives validity to a way of being that some find offensive. Well you know what? Too bad. I find it offensive that people use the bible and religion to justify their intolerance and hatred of their fellow man.

There are a lot of positives that comes from religion and religious teachings. But you have to be consistent in your beliefs and understanding. You can't pick and choose who to tolerate and who not to tolerate. You can't say marriage is sacred so let's prevent homosexuals from using the term yet think it's okay to divorce if your marriage doesn't work out. You can't love thy neighbor and talk behind his back and judge his way of life. You can't cast the first stone unless you yourself are without sin.

...And you can't say the way I love another human being is any less valuable and valid than the way you love another human being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Not only did you reveal an utter contempt for religion, but you don't want anyone else to see anything positive about it.
post #1230 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Don't mock zinfella's God!


You are beyond being moronic.
post #1231 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.

Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up againand it willit won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.

Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.

Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.

You just LOVE the pro gay marriage talking points, no matter how much they don't apply here. Here's a couple of links that spell it out as far as I'm concerned.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...e_right_to_win

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denni..._the_new_black

You're comparing apples to oranges. Now, why don't the pro gay marriage sore losers protest in black neighborhoods, like they do in others?
post #1232 of 1350
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea...eature=related

A previous supporter of gay marriage ban speaks emotionally against it. Glad to see there are people who are not too old or closed-minded to admit when they're wrong.

Wasn't Arnie previously against gay marriage as well?

Here in Canada, one of the last thing our previous Liberal Government did was to legalize gay marriage across the country. When the Conservative government came to power a few months later, our new Prime Minister who was vocally against gay marriage fulfilled a campaign promise to put the debate back on the table and to put it to yet another vote. Even with a party that did not support gay marriage in power, that vote permanently redefined marriage as being between two persons, NOT just between a man and a woman.

To my friends south of the border, KEEP UP THE FIGHT! It's not over by a long shot, despite the rhetoric of finality by the likes of Zinfella (or more accurately, Sinfella). I truly hope he lives to see the day.
post #1233 of 1350
post #1234 of 1350
Quote:


That is no guarantee of success for gay marriage.
post #1235 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

Here in Canada, one of the last thing our previous Liberal Government did was to legalize gay marriage across the country. When the Conservative government came to power a few months later, our new Prime Minister who was vocally against gay marriage fulfilled a campaign promise to put the debate back on the table and to put it to yet another vote. Even with a party that did not support gay marriage in power, that vote permanently redefined marriage as being between two persons, NOT just between a man and a woman.

To my friends south of the border, KEEP UP THE FIGHT! It's not over by a long shot, despite the rhetoric of finality by the likes of Zinfella (or more accurately, Sinfella). I truly hope he lives to see the day.

It's funny to see how quickly the idea of 'gay marriage' becomes permanent when its supporters win.
However, when they lose, the idea is to be forever revisited.

The idea of 'gay marriage' is by no means settled in Canada. It was legalized by the weakest and lamest Prime Minister in our country's history, who was thrown out of office at the electorate's first real opportunity. That Martin was weak and relied heavily on gay activists during his short tenure is a matter of public record.

As was its champion, the idea of gay marriage would be tossed out by the Canadian electorate if they were given a vote on it as in California. This cheap facsimile of what marriage really is has always been eventually legislated in weak, decadent societies, from ancient Babylon to the Roman Empire.

And once those societies either fall or recover, it has always been tossed aside by subsequent thinking populations.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1236 of 1350
It's a lot easier to give rights than it is to take them away, especially for an issue where equality is so fundamental.

Whether or not gay marriage would have been legalized had the Canadian electorate been given the vote is debatable. However, it has been legal for a few years now and it hasn't changed a thing, other than to allow homosexuals to marry. Some may be offended by this but this is no basis for denying equality to a segment of society. Because of this, I believe that if the Canadian electorate was allowed to vote on this issue today, a majority of Canadians would support it. There will always be narrow-minded people like you but just as we still have a small group of hateful racists who participate in groups such as the KKK, one day, the homophobes will one day also be considered just another hateful, ignorant minority dismissed by the rest of society.

I find it funny that the same people who hold marriage to such high standards turn a blind eye to the high rate of divorce. Would you deny heterosexuals the right to marry if you knew it was done so on a whim or for publicity sakes? Face it dude, marriage isn't the sacred union it was once considered to be and is this way because of the behaviour of heterosexuals. You sound like one of those people who stereotype heterosexuals as promiscuous, sex-crazed, druggies (representing the weak and decadent part of society). Yet, you would deny the right of two people of the same sex who want to make a commitment to each other the right to do so.

As far as using Babylon and the Roman Empire as comparisons to Canada, all I have to say is, you're bloody hilarious! Thanks for the laugh... now I know not to take you seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

It's funny to see how quickly the idea of 'gay marriage' becomes permanent when its supporters win.
However, when they lose, the idea is to be forever revisited.

The idea of 'gay marriage' is by no means settled in Canada. It was legalized by the weakest and lamest Prime Minister in our country's history, who was thrown out of office at the electorate's first real opportunity. That Martin was weak and relied heavily on gay activists during his short tenure is a matter of public record.

As was its champion, the idea of gay marriage would be tossed out by the Canadian electorate if they were given a vote on it as in California. This cheap facsimile of what marriage really is has always been eventually legislated in weak, decadent societies, from ancient Babylon to the Roman Empire.

And once those societies either fall or recover, it has always been tossed aside by subsequent thinking populations.
post #1237 of 1350
Canuck raises a hell of a good point.

Zinfella, were you for or against interracial marriage, or individual States' rights to ban it, back in the day? I really would like to know the answer to this question.

And please be honest. Remember, you're a Christian, and Christians don't lie. Right?
post #1238 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Canuck raises a hell of a good point.

Zinfella, were you for or against interracial marriage, or individual States' rights to ban it, back in the day? I really would like to know the answer to this question.

And please be honest. Remember, you're a Christian, and Christians don't lie. Right?

If you had read the links that I posted on the 19th, you'd know the answer.
post #1239 of 1350
oh obama win in last election i thought macain is win in this last election im shock for that,busby seo test
post #1240 of 1350
Shifting the argument ( to inter-racial marriage) is a tactic used when someone can not win an argument on it's own merits. Homosexuality is NOT a race.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle