I oppose Prop 8; I know hundreds of people who oppose Prop 8; and I will go on record to state this:
Each of your six points is patently false.
Every. Single. One.
Not even one of them is remotely true. But stating them with authority makes you feel important and knowledgeable, doesn't it? I don't know one person who supports Prop 8 who's in favor of any of your points. Not one person!
Unfortunately, you're gullible, and you've been duped by the lies that proponents of Prop 8 have spread. They're playing "dirty," and in that regard, they're seeing success. Disagreeing is one thing. But lying is another. No one who opposes Prop 8 has needed to lie. So, why have supporters of Prop 8 had to do so? The fact that Prop 8 supporters have had to resort to lying says a lot about you. I challenge you to present a shred of non-partisan documentation that backs up your claims. And I challenge you to find one opponent of Prop 8 to corroborate your absurd claims. Just one. (Good luck with that.)
Meanwhile, I leave you with a question:
If Prop 8 passes, you'll no doubt claim that "God's will was done." With that in mind, if Prop 8 is defeated, will you admit that "God's will was done"? Or is "God's will" only done when he appears to agree with you?
First, I don't speak for God and am quite frustrated with the direction of this discussion. I feel that this is more of a social issue than a religious issue. I am very interested to hear your point of view and will be nothing but respecting and tolerant. Tolerance is about respecting differences without necessarily being uniform.
As to your question, we are seeing that the same groups fighting in opposition of Prop 8 in California are the same groups that are fighting for same-sex marriage to be added to elementary curriculum.
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
"Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children's book...'King and King'." [p 9]
"This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p 18]
"First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden...Second, in contravention of the axiom that 'the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas' [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom...Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach
the other students." [pp 22-23]
(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well
as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. It is indeed a matter of equality and civil rights.
I approve and praise Apple and Google for fighting this outrageous campaign by fanatic religious groups to deny the civil rights of others, the rights of people who do not belong to and do not recognize themselves as members of these churches and groups, including the Catholic Church.
This attempt to deny the rights of others is no different than denying the rights of someone by reason of their race, colour, or sex. Ask a woman, a Jew or a Black person if their rights should be denied or equal to every other American.
In Canada, with a population of over 33 million, I was surprised to learn that the number of gay marriages is between 6,500 and 8,000 per year. Gay and lesbian couples don't marry for the same reasons as straight heterosexual couples: Marriage is all about being financially responsible for your spouse and the children of your spouse, even if you are not the biologic parent of the children.
A divorce is a financial catastrophy for everyone, gay or straight, as spouses must sell their home and share their pensions, retirement allocations and life savings.
In Canada, fewer and fewer people are willing to commit to one another to that extent, especially in the absence of children. I don't believe that more than 30% of the couples choose marriage, even if they have children.
Marriage is all about financial responsability and equal rights. Marriage is not about sex or religion, just the financial burden of breakup.
Everyone can have sex without the commitment of marriage. If you choose to marry, you become financially responsible for your spouse and the children of your spouse.
Thank you Apple and Google for doing the right thing.
Quite. I always swore I would never get married. Then a friend told me that if she ever had a child she would marry the father, love or no love. She explained why and I saw her point. Much as she disagreed with the idea it was her child insurance in the eyes of the law. Times have changed, thankfully, and in many countries marriage is on the way out. Fewer and fewer people are getting married in the Scandinavian countries.
Yes, transformation is what Jesus was about, and he went out of his way to serve, eat with, walk with people considered outsiders in his day. The Bible is stories of people trying to perceive God, includes many contradictions. The bottom line I find is respect and justice and love for every person. Every person is beloved. Prop. 8 seeks to deny some people legal rights. Prop. 8 is funded by religious people seeking to tell the state how to define rights. Religions can define marriage in their traditions, and they do, and many traditions contradict one another. Some say men rule over women. Some say you can't marry outside the religion. Some religions believe in polygamy. State law is different. State law is about equalty for everyone, it is about equal access to privileges of marriage. One more comment, please have the respect for LGBT persons to ask them what they think and experience on this issue. I read this site often. I applaud Apple for contributing to defeat Prop. 8, just as I would applaud any company for contributing to stop discrimination against people of color and women.
Jesus did go out of his way to be with the most broken of God's people -- even prostitutes. But he didn't condone their behavior and didn't change the rules to allow people's pet sins to be considered "O.K."
Marriage is a right, but it's right for one man and one woman, that's all.
JOKE: a little self deprecating humor to highlight the ridiculousness of the term: The Gay Agenda
The Homosexual Agenda
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the US Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels
5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership
6) Bulldoze all houses of worship
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers
2:30 PM Get Forty Winks of Beauty Rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)
you forgot 7 to 7:30 Cruising for tricks in the Apple Store. Seriously congrats APPLE for sticking its nose where it had NO BUSINESS. I guess think different now has a new meaning.
I think APPLE needs to go back to making great computers and software... oh that's right its No
longer APPLE COMPUTER. Sure Apple would have a lot of gay customers but also a lot of straight
folks as well, way to build a cohesive brand..BTW i'm not bigoted I hate everyone equally. Why take a position that effectively causes sides. Personally the only thing I want to fit into slot F is a firewire cable... oh wait that's no longer supported.
I don't believe in discriminating against people over something they were born with, so if gayness is genetic they should be allowed to marry. I do believe in discriminating against people over their chosen actions, so if gayness is a choice then yes it's ok to ban gay marriage.
I used to believe it was a choice (it seemed obvious that it was a choice who you sleep with) but now I believe it is likely genetic so I support this action by Apple.
I know religious people believe marriage is their institution, and they should get to choose who can participate, but though it probably started with them it has grown much wider than that. i.e. purely secular men and women have been getting married for ages. And it's still the case that the religious people own the churches, so they can easily prevent one of these ceremonies happening there if they think it would offend God.
ou homos are not as powerful or as popular as you think. YOU WILL LOSE THE PROP 8 FIGHT BY A LANDSLIDE. I cant wait!!!!
This is distressing and ridiculous. Please know that there are those of us who are in Favor of Proposition 8 that have carefully discussed and considered both sides. We are not all crazy or uneducated.
The schools issue is so off base. First, local school districts decide such a curriculum matter. Second, topcis like sex education are only brought up in age-appropriate ways. Third, the point of books about same sex parents is to bring the reality of various children's and adolescent's lives into any discussion about families. Not to train young people to so-called choose a sexual orientation. But to help all young people know that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons are part of our communities and schools, and deserve respect. Also, to let any young people who identify themselves as not hetersexual to find support and appreciation for who they are. The messages of many yes on 8 folks only confirms the need for public education to say, in age-appropriate ways, that being gay is okay. Do you know how many gay and lesbian young people contemplate suicide because they feel totally alone in our society, with religions telling them they are immoral, wrong, unworthy?
Do you know how many gay and lesbian young people contemplate suicide because they feel totally alone in our society, with religions telling them they are immoral, wrong, unworthy?
You bring up a very serious and meaningful point. But can we not deal with tolerance and acceptance without redefining marriage?
Jesus did go out of his way to be with the most broken of God's people -- even prostitutes. But he didn't condone their behavior and didn't change the rules to allow people's pet sins to be considered "O.K."
Marriage is a right, but it's right for one man and one woman, that's all.
I simply ask you to listen to same-sex couples tell what it is like to live in our society. And listen to many institutions who believe freedom and rights in marriage should include same-sex couples. Much of Jesus' ministry was about breaking rules of religious leaders for the higher commandment of loving all neighbors. Jesus did not address homosexuality. And he didn't judge the behavior of prostitutes, either, he much more judged conformity and oppression of others.
After a lot of research and an agonizingly long wait for the aluminum MacBooks, I was planning to go to the Apple Store tomorrow to purchase a new 2.4Ghz MacBook. Then I saw this news.
If Jobs had given $100,000 of his own money to oppose California Proposition 8, it would have been different. If Apple employees want to give their own money, that is their business. But the definition of marriage is a deeply-held, moral and ethical position. And for a company such as Apple, which is known for the fanatical loyalty of its customer base, to take one side of such a critical issue is to suggest that those who support Apple should support that view also.
CEO's should use their own resources in support of a cause, instead of taking the revenue that comes from a company's customer base and using it in controversial ways that many of their customers cannot support.
So, as much as I was looking forward to it, my purchase of a MacBook is off--and no iPod Touch either.
oh man. let me just put it so i dont get banned here. you're one limited mind.
and onto topic ... i dont care who gets married to who ( or what ). but its high time for "couples" to have same rights as " married couple ".
Because if you know God, then it's tough to enjoy things that he doesn't approve of. Sex before marriage is in the same category as homosexual sex. God made sex to be for one male/female couple, never to be unfaithful and never to divorce. Anything other than that, and you're short-changing yourself. And her.
If you don't know God, then I can understand why you feel you can do whatever pleases you.
Why do you assume I do whatever pleases me? I do try and find pleasure in whatever I do but that is beside the point.
I don't actually believe anybody knows god, but the 'feeling' of this absolute knowledge must be a little like being stoned - not that I have ever inhaled. The problem with your idea of sex and marriage is that by following your doctrine you stand a very good chance of marrying someone you are not compatible with sexually. You wouldn't know but that is one helluva hurdle to get over in real life. You may stay and be loyal but it is hard to be happy when you realize you made a mistake. A situation which often has consequences way beyond you and your wife's relationship. I am not saying you will but you have very little chance of guarding against it. Your god is extremely cruel.
We are all free to define and cultivate marriage as we choose. Religions are likewise free. And we do define marriage differently. I do not seriously protest your right to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I believe differently, and my church believes differently. We celebrated same-sex marriages long before the Supreme Court decision. You (and your church if you are part of one) and me and my church can disagree. Prop. 8 is about legal, state rights, about what the state recognizes in issues of property ownership, child custody, applying for loans, and much more.
By design, the body was intend to pro-create. That is it's intend purpose. Anything else is a perversion. If you want to destroy something, what do you do? You pervert it.
So reading these forums is a perversion for you? Wearing clothes is a perversion for you? We are sexually dimorphic but nature, but that does not mean anything outside the attempt to procreate to impregnate/get pregnant is a perversion. By your definition condoms are the devil's work and sterile people should not be allowed to have sex.
What is perverse is to not act as our biology dictates us to act. That doesn't mean that their must be a goal outside the act itself. Typical mammalian biology has made the act enjoy enough that procreation is inevitable, and with over 6.5 Billion people on this planet nature seems to be doing it's job swimmingly. (vague pun intended)
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Holy crap - I would hate to go to a party with you.
By his definition, he would not go to a party unless his goal was to impregnate someone or get impregnated (depending on his/her gender).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
yeah, we already talked about that. My history book must have just sucked or I had a really weird history prof... But yeah, it's just BC/AD in a PC form.
At least it wasn't Before Christ's Era and Christ's Era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbh0001
But the majority of the world has adopted the use of a Christian adapted calendar: the Gregorian Calendar. Granted, that it has done so to simplify business transactions rather than to endorse Christianity, which makes its adoption an use mostly a non issue.
That is why I changed my view of it. I think changing the terminology to be more Universal is not a bad idea, but changing the calendaring system would be impossible to change and highly disruptive if attempted. At least way, the BCE/CE can slowly creep into society without affecting the numbering. There are plenty of other calendaring systems in use that we don't acknowledge as a whole. For example, Fri, 24 October 2008 = 25th of Tishrei, 5769 in the Hebrew calender.
PS: In 1873, the French had a novel idea to go to a French Revolutionary Time. This was a decimal-based clock.This was a 10 hour day (which means that the hours were 2.5x longer than current hours), then spit into 100 minutes per hour and 100 seconds per minute. This does have some logic to it, but we are so set on the Babylonian obsession of 12s, with out 24 hour clock with 60 minutes and 60 seconds.
PPS: I was told as a kid that I needed to know the decimal system because the US will adopt it like the rest of the world shortly. The only thing we measure that way is 2L of soda. Are teachers still telling students that?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.
Exclude people? How ironic. That is exactly what the proposed Constitutional amendment would do.
It is disappointing that there are some shallow-thinking Macintosh users in our midst. I imagine that many of them would have been against giving women the right to vote, against outlawing slavery, and against allowing black people to drink from "white" water fountains.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.
\t
I totally agree with your viewpoint.
Besides, children should not be affacted by Gay or Non-Gay Viewpoint.
You bring up a very serious and meaningful point. But can we not deal with tolerance and acceptance without redefining marriage?
Sorry, no. Marriage is such a socially and culturally entrenched institution that if it isn't open to all it signals cultural and institutional discrimination base upon sexual orientation.
Comments
srs,
I oppose Prop 8; I know hundreds of people who oppose Prop 8; and I will go on record to state this:
Each of your six points is patently false.
Every. Single. One.
Not even one of them is remotely true. But stating them with authority makes you feel important and knowledgeable, doesn't it? I don't know one person who supports Prop 8 who's in favor of any of your points. Not one person!
Unfortunately, you're gullible, and you've been duped by the lies that proponents of Prop 8 have spread. They're playing "dirty," and in that regard, they're seeing success. Disagreeing is one thing. But lying is another. No one who opposes Prop 8 has needed to lie. So, why have supporters of Prop 8 had to do so? The fact that Prop 8 supporters have had to resort to lying says a lot about you. I challenge you to present a shred of non-partisan documentation that backs up your claims. And I challenge you to find one opponent of Prop 8 to corroborate your absurd claims. Just one. (Good luck with that.)
Meanwhile, I leave you with a question:
If Prop 8 passes, you'll no doubt claim that "God's will was done." With that in mind, if Prop 8 is defeated, will you admit that "God's will was done"? Or is "God's will" only done when he appears to agree with you?
First, I don't speak for God and am quite frustrated with the direction of this discussion. I feel that this is more of a social issue than a religious issue. I am very interested to hear your point of view and will be nothing but respecting and tolerant. Tolerance is about respecting differences without necessarily being uniform.
As to your question, we are seeing that the same groups fighting in opposition of Prop 8 in California are the same groups that are fighting for same-sex marriage to be added to elementary curriculum.
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
"Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children's book...'King and King'." [p 9]
"This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p 18]
"First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden...Second, in contravention of the axiom that 'the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas' [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom...Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach
the other students." [pp 22-23]
(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well
as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
There are several other sources such as this one available here: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4905820&EDATE=
Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. It is indeed a matter of equality and civil rights.
I approve and praise Apple and Google for fighting this outrageous campaign by fanatic religious groups to deny the civil rights of others, the rights of people who do not belong to and do not recognize themselves as members of these churches and groups, including the Catholic Church.
This attempt to deny the rights of others is no different than denying the rights of someone by reason of their race, colour, or sex. Ask a woman, a Jew or a Black person if their rights should be denied or equal to every other American.
In Canada, with a population of over 33 million, I was surprised to learn that the number of gay marriages is between 6,500 and 8,000 per year. Gay and lesbian couples don't marry for the same reasons as straight heterosexual couples: Marriage is all about being financially responsible for your spouse and the children of your spouse, even if you are not the biologic parent of the children.
A divorce is a financial catastrophy for everyone, gay or straight, as spouses must sell their home and share their pensions, retirement allocations and life savings.
In Canada, fewer and fewer people are willing to commit to one another to that extent, especially in the absence of children. I don't believe that more than 30% of the couples choose marriage, even if they have children.
Marriage is all about financial responsability and equal rights. Marriage is not about sex or religion, just the financial burden of breakup.
Everyone can have sex without the commitment of marriage. If you choose to marry, you become financially responsible for your spouse and the children of your spouse.
Thank you Apple and Google for doing the right thing.
Quite. I always swore I would never get married. Then a friend told me that if she ever had a child she would marry the father, love or no love. She explained why and I saw her point. Much as she disagreed with the idea it was her child insurance in the eyes of the law. Times have changed, thankfully, and in many countries marriage is on the way out. Fewer and fewer people are getting married in the Scandinavian countries.
Yes, transformation is what Jesus was about, and he went out of his way to serve, eat with, walk with people considered outsiders in his day. The Bible is stories of people trying to perceive God, includes many contradictions. The bottom line I find is respect and justice and love for every person. Every person is beloved. Prop. 8 seeks to deny some people legal rights. Prop. 8 is funded by religious people seeking to tell the state how to define rights. Religions can define marriage in their traditions, and they do, and many traditions contradict one another. Some say men rule over women. Some say you can't marry outside the religion. Some religions believe in polygamy. State law is different. State law is about equalty for everyone, it is about equal access to privileges of marriage. One more comment, please have the respect for LGBT persons to ask them what they think and experience on this issue. I read this site often. I applaud Apple for contributing to defeat Prop. 8, just as I would applaud any company for contributing to stop discrimination against people of color and women.
Jesus did go out of his way to be with the most broken of God's people -- even prostitutes. But he didn't condone their behavior and didn't change the rules to allow people's pet sins to be considered "O.K."
Marriage is a right, but it's right for one man and one woman, that's all.
JOKE: a little self deprecating humor to highlight the ridiculousness of the term: The Gay Agenda
The Homosexual Agenda
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the US Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels
5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership
6) Bulldoze all houses of worship
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers
2:30 PM Get Forty Winks of Beauty Rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)
you forgot 7 to 7:30 Cruising for tricks in the Apple Store.
I think APPLE needs to go back to making great computers and software... oh that's right its No
longer APPLE COMPUTER. Sure Apple would have a lot of gay customers but also a lot of straight
folks as well, way to build a cohesive brand..BTW i'm not bigoted I hate everyone equally. Why take a position that effectively causes sides. Personally the only thing I want to fit into slot F is a firewire cable... oh wait that's no longer supported.
I used to believe it was a choice (it seemed obvious that it was a choice who you sleep with) but now I believe it is likely genetic so I support this action by Apple.
I know religious people believe marriage is their institution, and they should get to choose who can participate, but though it probably started with them it has grown much wider than that. i.e. purely secular men and women have been getting married for ages. And it's still the case that the religious people own the churches, so they can easily prevent one of these ceremonies happening there if they think it would offend God.
ou homos are not as powerful or as popular as you think. YOU WILL LOSE THE PROP 8 FIGHT BY A LANDSLIDE. I cant wait!!!!
This is distressing and ridiculous. Please know that there are those of us who are in Favor of Proposition 8 that have carefully discussed and considered both sides. We are not all crazy or uneducated.
srs, a press release from the Yes/8 people isn't a credible source.
The press release references the same groups lobbying for in the east what they are promising will not occur in the west.
Do you know how many gay and lesbian young people contemplate suicide because they feel totally alone in our society, with religions telling them they are immoral, wrong, unworthy?
You bring up a very serious and meaningful point. But can we not deal with tolerance and acceptance without redefining marriage?
Jesus did go out of his way to be with the most broken of God's people -- even prostitutes. But he didn't condone their behavior and didn't change the rules to allow people's pet sins to be considered "O.K."
Marriage is a right, but it's right for one man and one woman, that's all.
I simply ask you to listen to same-sex couples tell what it is like to live in our society. And listen to many institutions who believe freedom and rights in marriage should include same-sex couples. Much of Jesus' ministry was about breaking rules of religious leaders for the higher commandment of loving all neighbors. Jesus did not address homosexuality. And he didn't judge the behavior of prostitutes, either, he much more judged conformity and oppression of others.
After a lot of research and an agonizingly long wait for the aluminum MacBooks, I was planning to go to the Apple Store tomorrow to purchase a new 2.4Ghz MacBook. Then I saw this news.
If Jobs had given $100,000 of his own money to oppose California Proposition 8, it would have been different. If Apple employees want to give their own money, that is their business. But the definition of marriage is a deeply-held, moral and ethical position. And for a company such as Apple, which is known for the fanatical loyalty of its customer base, to take one side of such a critical issue is to suggest that those who support Apple should support that view also.
CEO's should use their own resources in support of a cause, instead of taking the revenue that comes from a company's customer base and using it in controversial ways that many of their customers cannot support.
So, as much as I was looking forward to it, my purchase of a MacBook is off--and no iPod Touch either.
oh man. let me just put it so i dont get banned here. you're one limited mind.
and onto topic ... i dont care who gets married to who ( or what ). but its high time for "couples" to have same rights as " married couple ".
Because if you know God, then it's tough to enjoy things that he doesn't approve of. Sex before marriage is in the same category as homosexual sex. God made sex to be for one male/female couple, never to be unfaithful and never to divorce. Anything other than that, and you're short-changing yourself. And her.
If you don't know God, then I can understand why you feel you can do whatever pleases you.
Why do you assume I do whatever pleases me? I do try and find pleasure in whatever I do but that is beside the point.
I don't actually believe anybody knows god, but the 'feeling' of this absolute knowledge must be a little like being stoned - not that I have ever inhaled. The problem with your idea of sex and marriage is that by following your doctrine you stand a very good chance of marrying someone you are not compatible with sexually. You wouldn't know but that is one helluva hurdle to get over in real life. You may stay and be loyal but it is hard to be happy when you realize you made a mistake. A situation which often has consequences way beyond you and your wife's relationship. I am not saying you will but you have very little chance of guarding against it. Your god is extremely cruel.
Besides, children should be not be educated by Gay or Non-Gay Viewpoint.
By design, the body was intend to pro-create. That is it's intend purpose. Anything else is a perversion. If you want to destroy something, what do you do? You pervert it.
So reading these forums is a perversion for you? Wearing clothes is a perversion for you? We are sexually dimorphic but nature, but that does not mean anything outside the attempt to procreate to impregnate/get pregnant is a perversion. By your definition condoms are the devil's work and sterile people should not be allowed to have sex.
What is perverse is to not act as our biology dictates us to act. That doesn't mean that their must be a goal outside the act itself. Typical mammalian biology has made the act enjoy enough that procreation is inevitable, and with over 6.5 Billion people on this planet nature seems to be doing it's job swimmingly. (vague pun intended)
Holy crap - I would hate to go to a party with you.
By his definition, he would not go to a party unless his goal was to impregnate someone or get impregnated (depending on his/her gender).
yeah, we already talked about that. My history book must have just sucked or I had a really weird history prof... But yeah, it's just BC/AD in a PC form.
At least it wasn't Before Christ's Era and Christ's Era.
But the majority of the world has adopted the use of a Christian adapted calendar: the Gregorian Calendar. Granted, that it has done so to simplify business transactions rather than to endorse Christianity, which makes its adoption an use mostly a non issue.
That is why I changed my view of it. I think changing the terminology to be more Universal is not a bad idea, but changing the calendaring system would be impossible to change and highly disruptive if attempted. At least way, the BCE/CE can slowly creep into society without affecting the numbering. There are plenty of other calendaring systems in use that we don't acknowledge as a whole. For example, Fri, 24 October 2008 = 25th of Tishrei, 5769 in the Hebrew calender.
PS: In 1873, the French had a novel idea to go to a French Revolutionary Time. This was a decimal-based clock.This was a 10 hour day (which means that the hours were 2.5x longer than current hours), then spit into 100 minutes per hour and 100 seconds per minute. This does have some logic to it, but we are so set on the Babylonian obsession of 12s, with out 24 hour clock with 60 minutes and 60 seconds.PPS: I was told as a kid that I needed to know the decimal system because the US will adopt it like the rest of the world shortly. The only thing we measure that way is 2L of soda. Are teachers still telling students that?
This is simply wrong.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.
Exclude people? How ironic. That is exactly what the proposed Constitutional amendment would do.
It is disappointing that there are some shallow-thinking Macintosh users in our midst. I imagine that many of them would have been against giving women the right to vote, against outlawing slavery, and against allowing black people to drink from "white" water fountains.
This is simply wrong.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.
\t
I totally agree with your viewpoint.
Besides, children should not be affacted by Gay or Non-Gay Viewpoint.
You bring up a very serious and meaningful point. But can we not deal with tolerance and acceptance without redefining marriage?
Sorry, no. Marriage is such a socially and culturally entrenched institution that if it isn't open to all it signals cultural and institutional discrimination base upon sexual orientation.