Really? "Human rights"? The "right" to pay more taxes? The "right" to... what exactly? No where in any part of the US Constitution does it say marriage is a "right" nor should they be involved in what the definition of marriage is in the first place.
Married folks pay MORE taxes? Last I checked, married folks actually pay LESS in combined taxes compared to individuals filing single with like wages and deductions.
This has nothing to do with apple's business and as a shareholder, I feel this is detrimental to apple. I'm indifferent to the Supreme Court decision but for Apple to be issuing statements and comments on the issue will only piss off potential customers that are against this. I see religious schools choosing not to buy iPads for their students because of Apple being viewed in their eyes as a supporter of sin. Stay out of this crap and do what you do best%u2026 create, build, and sell awesome products.
The mistake you have made, however is that in saying you have "fixed" you have implied that what was said was wrong. Do you have any special knowledge that would support this implication? Probably not.
Procreation and raising children is in my view the real legitimate reason to marry, anything else is out of convenience, benefits, money, or something else.
We should all realize there is a difference between what individuals believe, and what is law or public policy. Of course individuals can hold beliefs separate from what policy is -- it is an opinion.
Government in this situation, like most others, is the problem and never the solution! I said marriage should be a private matter, I did not say anything about religion -- that was you.
No I am for liberty in both social and economic matters, which is different than a conservative.
It is deplorable that Cook did not stand up more strongly to government's FAR excessive taxation levels in this country, as Apple knows well and had an opportunity to make a much stronger statement to the Senate subcommittee. Instead makes statements about this which is far less important. Why, because if everyone paid far less taxes, they would have far more disposable income available, and bennies would be far less a driver for marriage, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade
Then what about all those couples that don't have kid or can't have kids??? Your saying you favor nullifying their marriage after say 12 months if not producing kids? And don't give me that "possibility of kids" BS...
Oh, please actually learn your history before speaking... marriage was around way before religion, it is not the government that should remove it's self it would be religion. Back when people got married they would have a town gathering where everyone used to come. When the towns got to large, the only place big enough for ceremonies usually were the churches. Even today, priest are given temporary notary powers to sign the marriage licence. You don't need a priest, you can go down to your town hall have a judge marry you... no religion necessary.
Befits that go along with marriage, many of the 1200+ of them do not involve kids. Legal right to property bought together, medical decisions, etc. List goes on and on. And I know multiple couples that are married "just for benefits" and don't have kids. My aunt is one of them. Divorced and remarried to the same guy 4 times over the years, and it is just "for the benefits" because she can't have kids. I know multiple same sex couples been together 20+ years and are always worried because they are not married that if something happens to one of them, their family can come in and take everything and leave the other one out in the cold with nothing, because they are not married and have that protection. And before you say "there is legal paperwork", yep gets thrown out of court or not even paid attention too. You can Google the CA case about housing, and TN for the medical. Both couples had all the paperwork and both times the paperwork was just ignored.
So from your name I take it your to be a conservative? Then need I remind you that conservatives are for smaller government and person responsibility. Which means government should not be tell anyone who they can or can't marry. And it should be up to the individual to marry whom they wish.
As for topic - Apple has every right to make any time of statements they want to make. It is up to you to decide if you want to keep doing business with them due to it. I for one have many corps I do not buy anything from due to their practices, or public statements. I commend Apple for believing in equality in everything not just something for some people.
Looks like you act like a wacko with a reality distortion field if you don't understand more of the real reasons many people marry!
If I don't understand something how can that make me a whacko? It might make me dumb but whacko? And you are misusing the term 'reality distortion field'. You have failed to understand its meaning and I therefore feel certain you don't know its origin as applied to Steve Jobs which is kinda sad seeing as you are using it against me because I don't agree with you. Oh, and you just entirely neutralized your own 'argument' by using the word 'many'. And to cap it off, with a forum name such as yours, spouting forth bigotry and prejudice you truly do confirm yourself as a 'whacko'.
It was to call out your nonsensical use of wacko ad hominem attacking. I attributed it to your actions.
Jobs has nothing to do with your reality distortion field, stay on topic. No bigotry here, but considering how you present no real contribution to the topic, I don't see your value here. Further, there is no prejudice, since my original post was based in reason, clearly you exhibit very little.
Unfortunately, marriage as an institution has become mostly a joke in this country, and it just continues down that path...
If you need some food for thought, there is an entire magazine devoted to it:
If I don't understand something how can that make me a whacko? It might make me dumb but whacko? And you are misusing the term 'reality distortion field'. You have failed to understand its meaning and I therefore feel certain you don't know its origin as applied to Steve Jobs which is kinda sad seeing as you are using it against me because I don't agree with you. Oh, and you just entirely neutralized your own 'argument' by using the word 'many'. And to cap it off, with a forum name such as yours, spouting forth bigotry and prejudice you truly do confirm yourself as a 'whacko'.
But people are protected and may be they would want this kind of rights.
One can argue, that the fact that animals are not protected, does not mean that this is right and fair. At times even people-minorities and women were not protected by the US Constitution.
Domesticated partners? Reckon some municipalities will have to update ordinances with the times. Only livestock allowed in my city limits consist of chickens and roosters. Perhaps individuals will apply for a license at Parks and Wildlife? Department of Interior?
For clarification - I am not the one agreeing that Human:Human is a valid parallel with Human:[insert four-legged creature here].
Married folks pay MORE taxes? Last I checked, married folks actually pay LESS in combined taxes compared to individuals filing single with like wages and deductions.
Depends on pre-married income, married couple may pay more or less. Say a couple making $100k each with itemized deductions and mortgate of $600k each, they will pay more taxes filing married joined. However, if only 1 of the couple is making $100k, then definitely will pay less tax after married.
Generally, tax code doesn't treat a couple as 2 persons for deductions, more like 1.5 persons. A lot of the deductions phase out not at 2 x single rate but less than that.
This is a sad day for America. God's goodness and truth continue to be pushed to the curb. It will come back to bite us in the butt - like ignoring the "Danger no smoking or open flames" at a gas station or jumping out of a plane with the belief that gravity does not exist. Foolish and deadly.
Goood ill be glad. Lets keep pushing him away. Voluntarily pushing religion aside is bound to have positive effects...like not getting into other countries' religious wars.....and the list goes on. Lets push god in a closet.
Comments
LOL, no, you do have a point there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho
Are you suggesting that marriages of convenience are a phenomenon unique to same-sex couples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
Really? "Human rights"? The "right" to pay more taxes? The "right" to... what exactly? No where in any part of the US Constitution does it say marriage is a "right" nor should they be involved in what the definition of marriage is in the first place.
Married folks pay MORE taxes? Last I checked, married folks actually pay LESS in combined taxes compared to individuals filing single with like wages and deductions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarfungo
Married folks pay MORE taxes?
Sometimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBum
Marriage originated as a religious rite.
Marriage predates religion. Get your facts right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Yeah, I know that Tim Cook is gay, but so what? I don't care what who he is.
His personal preferences situation or personal life should not be a part of Apple's official policies, in my opinion.
I fixed that for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
I fixed that for you.
The mistake you have made, however is that in saying you have "fixed" you have implied that what was said was wrong. Do you have any special knowledge that would support this implication? Probably not.
Procreation and raising children is in my view the real legitimate reason to marry, anything else is out of convenience, benefits, money, or something else.
We should all realize there is a difference between what individuals believe, and what is law or public policy. Of course individuals can hold beliefs separate from what policy is -- it is an opinion.
Government in this situation, like most others, is the problem and never the solution! I said marriage should be a private matter, I did not say anything about religion -- that was you.
No I am for liberty in both social and economic matters, which is different than a conservative.
It is deplorable that Cook did not stand up more strongly to government's FAR excessive taxation levels in this country, as Apple knows well and had an opportunity to make a much stronger statement to the Senate subcommittee. Instead makes statements about this which is far less important. Why, because if everyone paid far less taxes, they would have far more disposable income available, and bennies would be far less a driver for marriage, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade
Then what about all those couples that don't have kid or can't have kids??? Your saying you favor nullifying their marriage after say 12 months if not producing kids? And don't give me that "possibility of kids" BS...
Oh, please actually learn your history before speaking... marriage was around way before religion, it is not the government that should remove it's self it would be religion. Back when people got married they would have a town gathering where everyone used to come. When the towns got to large, the only place big enough for ceremonies usually were the churches. Even today, priest are given temporary notary powers to sign the marriage licence. You don't need a priest, you can go down to your town hall have a judge marry you... no religion necessary.
Befits that go along with marriage, many of the 1200+ of them do not involve kids. Legal right to property bought together, medical decisions, etc. List goes on and on. And I know multiple couples that are married "just for benefits" and don't have kids. My aunt is one of them. Divorced and remarried to the same guy 4 times over the years, and it is just "for the benefits" because she can't have kids. I know multiple same sex couples been together 20+ years and are always worried because they are not married that if something happens to one of them, their family can come in and take everything and leave the other one out in the cold with nothing, because they are not married and have that protection. And before you say "there is legal paperwork", yep gets thrown out of court or not even paid attention too. You can Google the CA case about housing, and TN for the medical. Both couples had all the paperwork and both times the paperwork was just ignored.
So from your name I take it your to be a conservative? Then need I remind you that conservatives are for smaller government and person responsibility. Which means government should not be tell anyone who they can or can't marry. And it should be up to the individual to marry whom they wish.
As for topic - Apple has every right to make any time of statements they want to make. It is up to you to decide if you want to keep doing business with them due to it. I for one have many corps I do not buy anything from due to their practices, or public statements. I commend Apple for believing in equality in everything not just something for some people.
Looks like you act like a wacko with a reality distortion field if you don't understand more of the real reasons many people marry!
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Nothing like a bit of same sex-nes to bring the whackos out of the closet
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall
Looks like you act like a wacko with a reality distortion field if you don't understand more of the real reasons many people marry!
If I don't understand something how can that make me a whacko? It might make me dumb but whacko? And you are misusing the term 'reality distortion field'. You have failed to understand its meaning and I therefore feel certain you don't know its origin as applied to Steve Jobs which is kinda sad seeing as you are using it against me because I don't agree with you. Oh, and you just entirely neutralized your own 'argument' by using the word 'many'. And to cap it off, with a forum name such as yours, spouting forth bigotry and prejudice you truly do confirm yourself as a 'whacko'.
Proverbs 16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
It was to call out your nonsensical use of wacko ad hominem attacking. I attributed it to your actions.
Jobs has nothing to do with your reality distortion field, stay on topic. No bigotry here, but considering how you present no real contribution to the topic, I don't see your value here. Further, there is no prejudice, since my original post was based in reason, clearly you exhibit very little.
Unfortunately, marriage as an institution has become mostly a joke in this country, and it just continues down that path...
If you need some food for thought, there is an entire magazine devoted to it:
Reason Magazine
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
If I don't understand something how can that make me a whacko? It might make me dumb but whacko? And you are misusing the term 'reality distortion field'. You have failed to understand its meaning and I therefore feel certain you don't know its origin as applied to Steve Jobs which is kinda sad seeing as you are using it against me because I don't agree with you. Oh, and you just entirely neutralized your own 'argument' by using the word 'many'. And to cap it off, with a forum name such as yours, spouting forth bigotry and prejudice you truly do confirm yourself as a 'whacko'.
Domesticated partners? Reckon some municipalities will have to update ordinances with the times. Only livestock allowed in my city limits consist of chickens and roosters. Perhaps individuals will apply for a license at Parks and Wildlife? Department of Interior?
For clarification - I am not the one agreeing that Human:Human is a valid parallel with Human:[insert four-legged creature here].
Sincerely,
Devil B. Advocate
Citation?
Edit: Given religion is basically defined as the belief and worship of a controlling power, it's hard to imagine pre-that, I'd call it a tie.
In the U.S., only the rich got protected and treated well, and governs the 99%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarfungo
Married folks pay MORE taxes? Last I checked, married folks actually pay LESS in combined taxes compared to individuals filing single with like wages and deductions.
Depends on pre-married income, married couple may pay more or less. Say a couple making $100k each with itemized deductions and mortgate of $600k each, they will pay more taxes filing married joined. However, if only 1 of the couple is making $100k, then definitely will pay less tax after married.
Generally, tax code doesn't treat a couple as 2 persons for deductions, more like 1.5 persons. A lot of the deductions phase out not at 2 x single rate but less than that.
More details see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
IRS is counting on the same-sex marriage to get more taxes out of those people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman
This is a sad day for America. God's goodness and truth continue to be pushed to the curb. It will come back to bite us in the butt - like ignoring the "Danger no smoking or open flames" at a gas station or jumping out of a plane with the belief that gravity does not exist. Foolish and deadly.
Goood ill be glad. Lets keep pushing him away. Voluntarily pushing religion aside is bound to have positive effects...like not getting into other countries' religious wars.....and the list goes on. Lets push god in a closet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
Citation?
Edit: Given religion is basically defined as the belief and worship of a controlling power, it's hard to imagine pre-that, I'd call it a tie.
Google it. It certainly predates christianity, islam etc...
Some not equal all. I don't need to google that.