2.) The suggestion that gay couples were "testing" businesses such as restaurants by visiting them and then overtly "fondling" each other. Assuming this is even true, I don't think that that's appropriate behaviour for a heterosexual couple so it's not for a gay couple either. As with 1.), these occurrences needn't be a consequence of allowing gays to marry.
On the contrary, if you see people 'fondling' in public the chances are they are not married. If they are 'overtly fondling' (I'd like that better defined) the chances become remote. Unless they are teenagers of course. And teenagers rarely marry unless they are hetero and 'morally obliged' such as the Palin girl.
No, all you need to do is explain what's so horrific about those happenings.
From what I read there were only two things that appeared excessive:
1.) An accusation was made about pornographic material in school libraries. Assuming that the material is pornographic, which I highly doubt, then I agree it shouldn't be in a school library. It should be quite obvious to anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a pea, that pornographic material in school libraries is not an unavoidable consequence of gay people getting married.
2.) The suggestion that gay couples were "testing" businesses such as restaurants by visiting them and then overtly "fondling" each other. Assuming this is even true, I don't think that that's appropriate behaviour for a heterosexual couple so it's not for a gay couple either. As with 1.), these occurrences needn't be a consequence of allowing gays to marry.
Let me leave you with this little tidbit. You don't vote here, but I do, and so does my family, and we do not have to justify our votes to the likes of you. IOW, YOU do NOT get to define the terms of the argument, one way or the other, NOR do you get to decide what's relevant. We have decided all of that already, and that will become apparent with the results of the election, next Tuesday. Meanwhile, that leaves you as a non-consequential buttinsky, that will have zero effect on the outcome. HTH
No, all you need to do is explain what's so horrific about those happenings.
From what I read there were only two things that appeared excessive:
1.) An accusation was made about pornographic material in school libraries. Assuming that the material is pornographic, which I highly doubt, then I agree it shouldn't be in a school library. It should be quite obvious to anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a pea, that pornographic material in school libraries is not an unavoidable consequence of gay people getting married.
2.) The suggestion that gay couples were "testing" businesses such as restaurants by visiting them and then overtly "fondling" each other. Assuming this is even true, I don't think that that's appropriate behaviour for a heterosexual couple so it's not for a gay couple either. As with 1.), these occurrences needn't be a consequence of allowing gays to marry.
Why don't you tell the North Koreans how to treat their citizens, or do you think that they would put any more stock in your opinions concerning societal issues than we do?
Wow. I just want to say that for the most part, if I were to be swayed - as a non-believer - by the posts of those most vocal about their "Christian" faith and how the failure of Prop 8 would so badly impact their lives and the lives of other people...how sinful those who are in consenting relationships with others of the same sex/gender...I would be so turned off from Christianity. As it is, I identify as a Christian, yet am appalled to be lumped in with so many people who refuse to show love to other people. So many stones are being thrown, so I must assume that so many of you must be without sin. You must have already removed that plank from your own eye to feel justified in pointing out the speck in other peoples...but perhaps it is because of that plank that you think you see a speck in someone else's eye when there may not be one...at least not the one you think you see. In any case, did Jesus not say that the first commandment was to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your sould, and with all your mind...the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Do you forget who your neighbor is? It sure sounds like it to me. Your neighbor includes the European Socialist who won't be voting on Prop 8; your neighbor is the gay couple who has been faithfully together for the past 30 years while the heterosexual couple down the street is getting a divorce after 3 1/2 years (or 55 hours after their Vegas wedding); your neighbor is the buddhist CEO of a company who makes social decisions that you may not agree with and does not necessarily adhere to the religious dogma to which you uphold.
xamian,
Yes, we are to love our neighbors, but that doesn't mean that we have to say that their sin is not sin. We are to remember that they are God's creatures who have fallen into sin, and need help.
Wow. Why the anger? Sorry that I'm being a buttinsky now too, but this IS and Internet forum with posters from around the world. We ARE here debating, aren't we? Why should it matter where people are from when it comes to debating.
Clearly, you've made up your mind regarding this issue. I disagree, but I respect your right to believe what you believe. However, that being said, why participate in this debate? As you said, you have the right to vote however you wish, and you've made your views clear. But just because people who don't live in California don't have the right to vote in this circumstance, it doesn't mean we don't have the right to have an opinion and to debate.
The whole purpose in a debate it to present your beliefs and to back them up with reasons so others can think for themselves and choose who they agree with.
Are you as upset with the out-of-state church groups who are funneling money into California to help ban gay marriage? I mean, what business is it of theirs what happens in California. If we go by your argument, why the heck should we care that women have no rights in certain parts of the world, that there are starving children in Africa, or that democracy doesn't exist in China? Are you saying you've never shared your opinions to others regarding issues that you have no say in?
So why does it bother you so much that there are out-of-state people who disagree with your opinion of what should happen in California? I mean, as a straight person, when it comes right down to it, why do you really care whether or not gay people are allowed to marry? So it offends you. So what? Does it really change your life in any way if gay people start to marry and make life-long commitments to each other? Here in Canada, gay people are allowed to marry across this entire country. And yet, it hasn't made a difference to a single straight person, except to possibly offend someone.
I suspect you don't want to see gay marriage legalized because you don't want what you perceive as an aberrant lifestyle to become legitimized. That is fair enough. But please don't tell people who disagree with you that they don't have the right to speak up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
Let me leave you with this little tidbit. You don't vote here, but I do, and so does my family, and we do not have to justify our votes to the likes of you. IOW, YOU do NOT get to define the terms of the argument, one way or the other, NOR do you get to decide what's relevant. We have decided all of that already, and that will become apparent with the results of the election, next Tuesday. Meanwhile, that leaves you as a non-consequential buttinsky, that will have zero effect on the outcome. HTH
I believe there is a God. But I believe that humans have twisted "God's message" to fit into human beliefs of what is moral and immoral. The original biblical texts (at least the ones deemed to be valid by the church) were written in Hebrew. These were then interpreted and translated into the various versions we have now. For example, not only did the Catholic church decide which texts were from God and which were not, they decided what the words meant, even when it wasn't so clear. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that nowhere in the original texts does it say that homosexuality is a sin.
I'm not saying this is definitive proof of anything. What I am saying is, we have lost sight of the basic teaching from the bible, which is to love one another and to not pass judgment on others because, in reality, we are all flawed.
What is so wrong about one man loving another? I mean, we are talking about love here, not hate. Marriage, in its modern form, is not necessarily defined as a religious bonding of souls. It is a statement of commitment, love, and affection.
What I don't get is this. Gay people, gay men in particular, are stereotyped as being sex-crazed, moral-less, drug addicted, party boys. As a gay man, this is probably the biggest reason I don't feel like I relate to the gay community, because, let's be honest, there is a part of the community that fits this description to a T. But you know what? There are heterosexuals who fit this description as well. There are straight couples in open marriages. Marriages! Yet, they still have the right to wed. And there are gay people who, except for who they are physically attracted to, are just like you, whether you're religious or not, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative.
And people arguing against gay marriage criticize the "gay lifestyle" but would deny gay couples - ones who want to make a life long commitment to each other - the ability to do so?
I know my argument will not sway the beliefs of those who simply think being gay is wrong. There's no point in trying because to you, we shouldn't exist. But you live your life, I'll live mine.
However, for those who are willing to debate, understand that for gay people to truly live our lives, with the same rights as straight people, we would need the right to love and marry whomever we choose. Luckily here in Canada, I can. And in my opinion (I'm allowed to have one), so should Californians, and the rest of the US for that matter.
Is it the association to the word marriage, a term historically religious, that bothers people so much? Perhaps there should be a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. Going a step further, perhaps we should leave it up to each individual church to decide, considering some churches do not discriminate against gays. All marriage is equal in the eyes of the government, but in the eyes of each individual church, it's up to their religious beliefs.
If you simply don't want to legitimize homosexuality by allowing gays to marry, then that's your baggage. Honestly, it's a fight you'll ultimately lose, because in the long run, discriminatory attitudes are on the way out.
Oh, and to directly address you comment regarding sin. You should deal with your sins first before you try to deal with mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
xamian,
Yes, we are to love our neighbors, but that doesn't mean that we have to say that their sin is not sin. We are to remember that they are God's creatures who have fallen into sin, and need help.
Wow. Why the anger? Sorry that I'm being a buttinsky now too, but this IS and Internet forum with posters from around the world. We ARE here debating, aren't we? Why should it matter where people are from when it comes to debating.
Clearly, you've made up your mind regarding this issue. I disagree, but I respect your right to believe what you believe. However, that being said, why participate in this debate? As you said, you have the right to vote however you wish, and you've made your views clear. But just because people who don't live in California don't have the right to vote in this circumstance, it doesn't mean we don't have the right to have an opinion and to debate.
The whole purpose in a debate it to present your beliefs and to back them up with reasons so others can think for themselves and choose who they agree with.
Are you as upset with the out-of-state church groups who are funneling money into California to help ban gay marriage? I mean, what business is it of theirs what happens in California. If we go by your argument, why the heck should we care that women have no rights in certain parts of the world, that there are starving children in Africa, or that democracy doesn't exist in China? Are you saying you've never shared your opinions to others regarding issues that you have no say in?
So why does it bother you so much that there are out-of-state people who disagree with your opinion of what should happen in California? I mean, as a straight person, when it comes right down to it, why do you really care whether or not gay people are allowed to marry? So it offends you. So what? Does it really change your life in any way if gay people start to marry and make life-long commitments to each other? Here in Canada, gay people are allowed to marry across this entire country. And yet, it hasn't made a difference to a single straight person, except to possibly offend someone.
I suspect you don't want to see gay marriage legalized because you don't want what you perceive as an aberrant lifestyle to become legitimized. That is fair enough. But please don't tell people who disagree with you that they don't have the right to speak up.
It is NOT an issue for the World, or one that concerns you. It IS an issue for Californians and Arizonans, because it is THEIR society being discussed and affected, not Canadian, not British, nor any other. Therefore, what you think is entirely immaterial with regard to this issue. You don't live here, so perhaps your efforts would be better spent perfecting your own society, that HEAVILY relies on the US to protect it, since the entire Canadian military has less personnel that the New York City Police Department.
Moreover, I do not think it's wise, or proper, for a business to attempt to affect society. If individuals in the business wish to do so, then that is their right. To use the business as a weapon against the citizens that already voted this down in the recent past, is wrong, and I DGAFRA is you like it or not.
It is NOT an issue for the World, or one that concerns you. It IS an issue for Californians and Arizonans, because it is THEIR society being discussed and affected, not Canadian, not British, nor any other. Therefore, what you think is entirely immaterial with regard to this issue. You don't live here, so perhaps your efforts would be better spent perfecting your own society, that HEAVILY relies on the US to protect it, since the entire Canadian military has less personnel that the New York City Police Department.
Unless the United States suddenly stopped being a part of the global community, it IS an issue that I should be concerned with. As a proud American, you should understand that, or do you not support your own government's interference with the politics of other countries?
Oh, BTW, nice attempt at a deflection. Let's change the subject and put the Canadian on defensive. LOL.
Quote:
Moreover, I do not think it's wise, or proper, for a business to attempt to affect society. If individuals in the business wish to do so, then that is their right. To use the business as a weapon against the citizens that already voted this down in the recent past, is wrong, and I DGAFRA is you like it or not.
Sounds like you have a lot of anger. If you DGAFRA, then why so angry? Oh and I think it's commendable that a business is taking a stance to support equal rights for gays. It's not easy to stand up for the minority. I'm glad Apple has the balls to do it. And BTW, as an Apple shareholder, I have a right to have an opinion on this.
I think it's hilarious that this thread has reached Page 21, given that most of AI's usual cast of politicos (of which I am one) have not noticed its existence because it's in General Discussion.
That tells me that this issue has engaged many of Apple's rank and file, who are not normally given to political discussion.
Between removing Firewire hastily and contributing to same-sex marriages fights, Apple is doing all kinds of stupid things to annoy large parts of their userbase these days.
The rich, arrogant Apple of the early 90's is definitely back. This does not bode well for Mac users.
I think it's hilarious that this thread has reached Page 21, given that most of AI's usual cast of politicos (of which I am one) have not noticed its existence because it's in General Discussion.
That tells me that this issue has engaged many of Apple's rank and file, who are not normally given to political discussion.
Between removing Firewire hastily and contributing to same-sex marriages fights, Apple is doing all kinds of stupid things to annoy large parts of their userbase these days.
The rich, arrogant Apple of the early 90's is definitely back. This does not bode well for Mac users.
Apple's taking sides in this issue has certainly given me pause about buying any more Apple products, and I've been using them exclusively for many years. Apple should not be engaged in societal engineering, they've become far too arrogant. Who the hell are they to think they know how we should live better than we do?
Apple's taking sides in this issue has certainly given me pause about buying any more Apple products, and I've been using them exclusively for many years. Apple should not be engaged in societal engineering, they've become far too arrogant.
Would you feel so steadfastly outraged if they took the side you're on?
... and I didn't realize standing up against social injustice was about taking sides.
Quote:
Who the hell are they to think they know how we should live better than we do?
You ask an excellent question. So, who the hell are you to think you know how homosexuals should live better than we do?
That is incorrect. Proposition 8 will not take away any rights from gays and lesbians so far as insurance, hospital rights, etc.
The biggest issue is that gay marriage will be taught to kids in school (as early as Kindergarten). Parents should have the right to teach their kids morals. It should not be controlled by the government. For that matter, I don't think marriage should be taught at all in school, but I guess that's for another debate.
You are so painfully wrong it's not funny. Either that or your one of the many people who lies about the bill. Go read it. Everything...EVERYTHING you said is 100% wrong. There is nothing in the bill about teaching kids anything about marriage in schools. Every education facility in the state has come out saying that Prop 8 changes nothing about how they deal with marriage. It would be ILLEGAL for a school to do such a thing. Trying to use this lie as an argument to support a bill that is made to take away someone's rights is sad. And wrong.
On a side note... It's strategically not a bad business move to align yourself with the global gay community. Many marketing studies have shown that the average disposable income of a gay household, age 35 and up, is 2.7 times that of the average straight household. Combine that with the fact that the gay community has a demonstrated 96% brand loyalty to companies that directly market to them, and you have a multi-billion dollar market waiting to be told where to spend their money. Think about the 6-12% of the global community that is gay (studies vary on this number, but most center around the 10% range) and that?s one of the most powerful buying communities on the planet. This is not secret and not new? Many companies know and understand this. I wouldn?t be amazed if the marketing team at Apple came up with the idea to donate? It?s the BEST direct marketing they could have ever done. For every pissed of straight household that refuses to buy a computer, you have 5 very happy, very loyal, very wealthy gay households with money to burn. And yes, it?s my job to know this. I?m a marketing manager for one of the lager private companies in the world.
On a side, side note, I don't understand how anyone can think denying someone equal rights under the law (not religion) is okay. If you cannot give everyone equal rights, then fine, don't tax everyone equally. Last time I checked, that was the REASON the US was formed and the British colonies in the "Americas" fought to become independent. Have you heard of no taxation without representation? So how about this... If you don't want to give everyone equal governmental rights, then give those denied the rights a HUGE tax break. In fact, don't tax them at all.
You are so painfully wrong it's not funny. Either that or your one of the many people who lies about the bill. Go read it. Everything...EVERYTHING you said is 100% wrong. There is nothing in the bill about teaching kids anything about marriage in schools. Every education facility in the state has come out saying that Prop 8 changes nothing about how they deal with marriage. It would be ILLEGAL for a school to do such a thing. Trying to use this lie as an argument to support a bill that is made to take away someone's rights is sad. And wrong.
On a side note... It's strategically not a bad business move to align yourself with the global gay community. Many marketing studies have shown that the average disposable income of a gay household, age 35 and up, is 2.7 times that of the average straight household. Combine that with the fact that the gay community has a demonstrated 96% brand loyalty to companies that directly market to them, and you have a multi-billion dollar market waiting to be told where to spend their money. Think about the 6-12% of the global community that is gay (studies vary on this number, but most center around the 10% range) and that?s one of the most powerful buying communities on the planet. This is not secret and not new? Many companies know and understand this. I wouldn?t be amazed if the marketing team at Apple came up with the idea to donate? It?s the BEST direct marketing they could have ever done. For every pissed of straight household that refuses to buy a computer, you have 5 very happy, very loyal, very wealthy gay households with money to burn. And yes, it?s my job to know this. I?m a marketing manager for one of the lager private companies in the world.
On a side, side note, I don't understand how anyone can think denying someone equal rights under the law (not religion) is okay. If you cannot give everyone equal rights, then fine, don't tax everyone equally. Last time I checked, that was the REASON the US was formed and the British colonies in the "Americas" fought to become independent. Have you heard of no taxation without representation? So how about this... If you don't want to give everyone equal governmental rights, then give those denied the rights a HUGE tax break. In fact, don't tax them at all.
Absolutely not! There is no equality between a marriage between one man and one woman, and a marriage of same sex partners. Just because you're confused about the differences between the sexes does not mean that everyone else is. No, no, no! My vote has been cast.
Adios, I don't suffer fools, or those that stick their nose into the business of others.
Funny you say that because you are the fool here and the one sticking his nose into other people's business and the one who tries to tell others how to live their life.
Funny you say that because you are the fool here and the one sticking his nose into other people's business and the one who tries to tell others how to live their life.
Really, then tell me Einstein, why is it on the ballot? Hmmmmmmmm? Who is trying to change society to accept aberrant behavior as being normal? Every argument that you put forth can be used to let people marry animals, or to promote polygamy. We don't need to conform, you do!
Really, then tell me Einstein, why is it on the ballot? Hmmmmmmmm? Who is trying to change society to accept aberrant behavior as being normal? Every argument that you put forth can be used to let people marry animals, or to promote polygamy. We don't need to conform, you do!
The only aberrant behaviour here is the one displayed by you and your church of hatred.
It must bother you that you haven't been able to debate your point sufficiently? I mean, what better way than to leave the losing side of a debate than with an insult.
I would have had more respect for you had you simply said, "sorry, this is just how I feel and what I believe." Instead, you resort to lying about the contents of Prop 8 and telling people they don't have the right to have an opinion - that you're right and they're wrong.
Congratulations. It's unfortunate that you don't suffer fools, considering you need to look in the mirror every morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
Adios, I don't suffer fools, or those that stick their nose into the business of others.
I believe there is a God. But I believe that humans have twisted "God's message" to fit into human beliefs of what is moral and immoral. The original biblical texts (at least the ones deemed to be valid by the church) were written in Hebrew. These were then interpreted and translated into the various versions we have now. For example, not only did the Catholic church decide which texts were from God and which were not, they decided what the words meant, even when it wasn't so clear. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that nowhere in the original texts does it say that homosexuality is a sin.
I'm not saying this is definitive proof of anything. What I am saying is, we have lost sight of the basic teaching from the bible, which is to love one another and to not pass judgment on others because, in reality, we are all flawed.
So you claim that the early church twisted things around and that the bible has been screwed up. Then you claim that we are missing the message that we're to love one another and not pass judgment on each other. But if the bible has been screwed up by men, then why should we believe that we are supposed to love each other? Maybe that wasn't originally in there, and the church screwed it up. And if the bible is screwed up, we can't believe it when it says we are not to pass judgment on each other. That may be a twisting of the original intent by the early church, not God's intent. If you argue that the bible is fundamentally flawed, then you can't use the argument that there is something valid about it.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Jesus says that we are to take the speck out of others' eyes -- but only after we've removed the planks from our own. It'd be like a dad who's having an affair telling his teenage daughter not to have sex. He can't do that with the plank in his eye -- his own affair. If he's taken the plank out of his eye (stopped the affair), THEN he can tell his daughter not to have sex.
I love what Jesus says right after that part about he plank and the spec, and judging others:
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
What he is saying is: don't try to impart wisdom to those who aren't worthy of it, don't try to correct someone who isn't willing to be corrected.
Comments
2.) The suggestion that gay couples were "testing" businesses such as restaurants by visiting them and then overtly "fondling" each other. Assuming this is even true, I don't think that that's appropriate behaviour for a heterosexual couple so it's not for a gay couple either. As with 1.), these occurrences needn't be a consequence of allowing gays to marry.
On the contrary, if you see people 'fondling' in public the chances are they are not married. If they are 'overtly fondling' (I'd like that better defined) the chances become remote. Unless they are teenagers of course. And teenagers rarely marry unless they are hetero and 'morally obliged' such as the Palin girl.
No, all you need to do is explain what's so horrific about those happenings.
From what I read there were only two things that appeared excessive:
1.) An accusation was made about pornographic material in school libraries. Assuming that the material is pornographic, which I highly doubt, then I agree it shouldn't be in a school library. It should be quite obvious to anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a pea, that pornographic material in school libraries is not an unavoidable consequence of gay people getting married.
2.) The suggestion that gay couples were "testing" businesses such as restaurants by visiting them and then overtly "fondling" each other. Assuming this is even true, I don't think that that's appropriate behaviour for a heterosexual couple so it's not for a gay couple either. As with 1.), these occurrences needn't be a consequence of allowing gays to marry.
Let me leave you with this little tidbit. You don't vote here, but I do, and so does my family, and we do not have to justify our votes to the likes of you. IOW, YOU do NOT get to define the terms of the argument, one way or the other, NOR do you get to decide what's relevant. We have decided all of that already, and that will become apparent with the results of the election, next Tuesday. Meanwhile, that leaves you as a non-consequential buttinsky, that will have zero effect on the outcome. HTH
No, all you need to do is explain what's so horrific about those happenings.
From what I read there were only two things that appeared excessive:
1.) An accusation was made about pornographic material in school libraries. Assuming that the material is pornographic, which I highly doubt, then I agree it shouldn't be in a school library. It should be quite obvious to anyone with a brain bigger than the size of a pea, that pornographic material in school libraries is not an unavoidable consequence of gay people getting married.
2.) The suggestion that gay couples were "testing" businesses such as restaurants by visiting them and then overtly "fondling" each other. Assuming this is even true, I don't think that that's appropriate behaviour for a heterosexual couple so it's not for a gay couple either. As with 1.), these occurrences needn't be a consequence of allowing gays to marry.
Why don't you tell the North Koreans how to treat their citizens, or do you think that they would put any more stock in your opinions concerning societal issues than we do?
Wow. I just want to say that for the most part, if I were to be swayed - as a non-believer - by the posts of those most vocal about their "Christian" faith and how the failure of Prop 8 would so badly impact their lives and the lives of other people...how sinful those who are in consenting relationships with others of the same sex/gender...I would be so turned off from Christianity. As it is, I identify as a Christian, yet am appalled to be lumped in with so many people who refuse to show love to other people. So many stones are being thrown, so I must assume that so many of you must be without sin. You must have already removed that plank from your own eye to feel justified in pointing out the speck in other peoples...but perhaps it is because of that plank that you think you see a speck in someone else's eye when there may not be one...at least not the one you think you see. In any case, did Jesus not say that the first commandment was to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your sould, and with all your mind...the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. Do you forget who your neighbor is? It sure sounds like it to me. Your neighbor includes the European Socialist who won't be voting on Prop 8; your neighbor is the gay couple who has been faithfully together for the past 30 years while the heterosexual couple down the street is getting a divorce after 3 1/2 years (or 55 hours after their Vegas wedding); your neighbor is the buddhist CEO of a company who makes social decisions that you may not agree with and does not necessarily adhere to the religious dogma to which you uphold.
xamian,
Yes, we are to love our neighbors, but that doesn't mean that we have to say that their sin is not sin. We are to remember that they are God's creatures who have fallen into sin, and need help.
Clearly, you've made up your mind regarding this issue. I disagree, but I respect your right to believe what you believe. However, that being said, why participate in this debate? As you said, you have the right to vote however you wish, and you've made your views clear. But just because people who don't live in California don't have the right to vote in this circumstance, it doesn't mean we don't have the right to have an opinion and to debate.
The whole purpose in a debate it to present your beliefs and to back them up with reasons so others can think for themselves and choose who they agree with.
Are you as upset with the out-of-state church groups who are funneling money into California to help ban gay marriage? I mean, what business is it of theirs what happens in California. If we go by your argument, why the heck should we care that women have no rights in certain parts of the world, that there are starving children in Africa, or that democracy doesn't exist in China? Are you saying you've never shared your opinions to others regarding issues that you have no say in?
So why does it bother you so much that there are out-of-state people who disagree with your opinion of what should happen in California? I mean, as a straight person, when it comes right down to it, why do you really care whether or not gay people are allowed to marry? So it offends you. So what? Does it really change your life in any way if gay people start to marry and make life-long commitments to each other? Here in Canada, gay people are allowed to marry across this entire country. And yet, it hasn't made a difference to a single straight person, except to possibly offend someone.
I suspect you don't want to see gay marriage legalized because you don't want what you perceive as an aberrant lifestyle to become legitimized. That is fair enough. But please don't tell people who disagree with you that they don't have the right to speak up.
Let me leave you with this little tidbit. You don't vote here, but I do, and so does my family, and we do not have to justify our votes to the likes of you. IOW, YOU do NOT get to define the terms of the argument, one way or the other, NOR do you get to decide what's relevant. We have decided all of that already, and that will become apparent with the results of the election, next Tuesday. Meanwhile, that leaves you as a non-consequential buttinsky, that will have zero effect on the outcome. HTH
I believe there is a God. But I believe that humans have twisted "God's message" to fit into human beliefs of what is moral and immoral. The original biblical texts (at least the ones deemed to be valid by the church) were written in Hebrew. These were then interpreted and translated into the various versions we have now. For example, not only did the Catholic church decide which texts were from God and which were not, they decided what the words meant, even when it wasn't so clear. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that nowhere in the original texts does it say that homosexuality is a sin.
I'm not saying this is definitive proof of anything. What I am saying is, we have lost sight of the basic teaching from the bible, which is to love one another and to not pass judgment on others because, in reality, we are all flawed.
What is so wrong about one man loving another? I mean, we are talking about love here, not hate. Marriage, in its modern form, is not necessarily defined as a religious bonding of souls. It is a statement of commitment, love, and affection.
What I don't get is this. Gay people, gay men in particular, are stereotyped as being sex-crazed, moral-less, drug addicted, party boys. As a gay man, this is probably the biggest reason I don't feel like I relate to the gay community, because, let's be honest, there is a part of the community that fits this description to a T. But you know what? There are heterosexuals who fit this description as well. There are straight couples in open marriages. Marriages! Yet, they still have the right to wed. And there are gay people who, except for who they are physically attracted to, are just like you, whether you're religious or not, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative.
And people arguing against gay marriage criticize the "gay lifestyle" but would deny gay couples - ones who want to make a life long commitment to each other - the ability to do so?
I know my argument will not sway the beliefs of those who simply think being gay is wrong. There's no point in trying because to you, we shouldn't exist. But you live your life, I'll live mine.
However, for those who are willing to debate, understand that for gay people to truly live our lives, with the same rights as straight people, we would need the right to love and marry whomever we choose. Luckily here in Canada, I can. And in my opinion (I'm allowed to have one), so should Californians, and the rest of the US for that matter.
Is it the association to the word marriage, a term historically religious, that bothers people so much? Perhaps there should be a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. Going a step further, perhaps we should leave it up to each individual church to decide, considering some churches do not discriminate against gays. All marriage is equal in the eyes of the government, but in the eyes of each individual church, it's up to their religious beliefs.
If you simply don't want to legitimize homosexuality by allowing gays to marry, then that's your baggage. Honestly, it's a fight you'll ultimately lose, because in the long run, discriminatory attitudes are on the way out.
Oh, and to directly address you comment regarding sin. You should deal with your sins first before you try to deal with mine.
xamian,
Yes, we are to love our neighbors, but that doesn't mean that we have to say that their sin is not sin. We are to remember that they are God's creatures who have fallen into sin, and need help.
Wow. Why the anger? Sorry that I'm being a buttinsky now too, but this IS and Internet forum with posters from around the world. We ARE here debating, aren't we? Why should it matter where people are from when it comes to debating.
Clearly, you've made up your mind regarding this issue. I disagree, but I respect your right to believe what you believe. However, that being said, why participate in this debate? As you said, you have the right to vote however you wish, and you've made your views clear. But just because people who don't live in California don't have the right to vote in this circumstance, it doesn't mean we don't have the right to have an opinion and to debate.
The whole purpose in a debate it to present your beliefs and to back them up with reasons so others can think for themselves and choose who they agree with.
Are you as upset with the out-of-state church groups who are funneling money into California to help ban gay marriage? I mean, what business is it of theirs what happens in California. If we go by your argument, why the heck should we care that women have no rights in certain parts of the world, that there are starving children in Africa, or that democracy doesn't exist in China? Are you saying you've never shared your opinions to others regarding issues that you have no say in?
So why does it bother you so much that there are out-of-state people who disagree with your opinion of what should happen in California? I mean, as a straight person, when it comes right down to it, why do you really care whether or not gay people are allowed to marry? So it offends you. So what? Does it really change your life in any way if gay people start to marry and make life-long commitments to each other? Here in Canada, gay people are allowed to marry across this entire country. And yet, it hasn't made a difference to a single straight person, except to possibly offend someone.
I suspect you don't want to see gay marriage legalized because you don't want what you perceive as an aberrant lifestyle to become legitimized. That is fair enough. But please don't tell people who disagree with you that they don't have the right to speak up.
It is NOT an issue for the World, or one that concerns you. It IS an issue for Californians and Arizonans, because it is THEIR society being discussed and affected, not Canadian, not British, nor any other. Therefore, what you think is entirely immaterial with regard to this issue. You don't live here, so perhaps your efforts would be better spent perfecting your own society, that HEAVILY relies on the US to protect it, since the entire Canadian military has less personnel that the New York City Police Department.
Moreover, I do not think it's wise, or proper, for a business to attempt to affect society. If individuals in the business wish to do so, then that is their right. To use the business as a weapon against the citizens that already voted this down in the recent past, is wrong, and I DGAFRA is you like it or not.
It is NOT an issue for the World, or one that concerns you. It IS an issue for Californians and Arizonans, because it is THEIR society being discussed and affected, not Canadian, not British, nor any other. Therefore, what you think is entirely immaterial with regard to this issue. You don't live here, so perhaps your efforts would be better spent perfecting your own society, that HEAVILY relies on the US to protect it, since the entire Canadian military has less personnel that the New York City Police Department.
Unless the United States suddenly stopped being a part of the global community, it IS an issue that I should be concerned with. As a proud American, you should understand that, or do you not support your own government's interference with the politics of other countries?
Oh, BTW, nice attempt at a deflection. Let's change the subject and put the Canadian on defensive. LOL.
Moreover, I do not think it's wise, or proper, for a business to attempt to affect society. If individuals in the business wish to do so, then that is their right. To use the business as a weapon against the citizens that already voted this down in the recent past, is wrong, and I DGAFRA is you like it or not.
Sounds like you have a lot of anger. If you DGAFRA, then why so angry? Oh and I think it's commendable that a business is taking a stance to support equal rights for gays. It's not easy to stand up for the minority. I'm glad Apple has the balls to do it. And BTW, as an Apple shareholder, I have a right to have an opinion on this.
That tells me that this issue has engaged many of Apple's rank and file, who are not normally given to political discussion.
Between removing Firewire hastily and contributing to same-sex marriages fights, Apple is doing all kinds of stupid things to annoy large parts of their userbase these days.
The rich, arrogant Apple of the early 90's is definitely back. This does not bode well for Mac users.
I think it's hilarious that this thread has reached Page 21, given that most of AI's usual cast of politicos (of which I am one) have not noticed its existence because it's in General Discussion.
That tells me that this issue has engaged many of Apple's rank and file, who are not normally given to political discussion.
Between removing Firewire hastily and contributing to same-sex marriages fights, Apple is doing all kinds of stupid things to annoy large parts of their userbase these days.
The rich, arrogant Apple of the early 90's is definitely back. This does not bode well for Mac users.
Apple's taking sides in this issue has certainly given me pause about buying any more Apple products, and I've been using them exclusively for many years. Apple should not be engaged in societal engineering, they've become far too arrogant. Who the hell are they to think they know how we should live better than we do?
Apple's taking sides in this issue has certainly given me pause about buying any more Apple products, and I've been using them exclusively for many years. Apple should not be engaged in societal engineering, they've become far too arrogant.
Would you feel so steadfastly outraged if they took the side you're on?
... and I didn't realize standing up against social injustice was about taking sides.
Who the hell are they to think they know how we should live better than we do?
You ask an excellent question. So, who the hell are you to think you know how homosexuals should live better than we do?
Would you feel so steadfastly outraged if they took the side you're on?
... and I didn't realize standing up against social injustice was about taking sides.
You ask an excellent question. So, who the hell are you to think you know how homosexuals should live better than we do?
Adios, I don't suffer fools, or those that stick their nose into the business of others.
That is incorrect. Proposition 8 will not take away any rights from gays and lesbians so far as insurance, hospital rights, etc.
The biggest issue is that gay marriage will be taught to kids in school (as early as Kindergarten). Parents should have the right to teach their kids morals. It should not be controlled by the government. For that matter, I don't think marriage should be taught at all in school, but I guess that's for another debate.
You are so painfully wrong it's not funny. Either that or your one of the many people who lies about the bill. Go read it. Everything...EVERYTHING you said is 100% wrong. There is nothing in the bill about teaching kids anything about marriage in schools. Every education facility in the state has come out saying that Prop 8 changes nothing about how they deal with marriage. It would be ILLEGAL for a school to do such a thing. Trying to use this lie as an argument to support a bill that is made to take away someone's rights is sad. And wrong.
On a side note... It's strategically not a bad business move to align yourself with the global gay community. Many marketing studies have shown that the average disposable income of a gay household, age 35 and up, is 2.7 times that of the average straight household. Combine that with the fact that the gay community has a demonstrated 96% brand loyalty to companies that directly market to them, and you have a multi-billion dollar market waiting to be told where to spend their money. Think about the 6-12% of the global community that is gay (studies vary on this number, but most center around the 10% range) and that?s one of the most powerful buying communities on the planet. This is not secret and not new? Many companies know and understand this. I wouldn?t be amazed if the marketing team at Apple came up with the idea to donate? It?s the BEST direct marketing they could have ever done. For every pissed of straight household that refuses to buy a computer, you have 5 very happy, very loyal, very wealthy gay households with money to burn. And yes, it?s my job to know this. I?m a marketing manager for one of the lager private companies in the world.
On a side, side note, I don't understand how anyone can think denying someone equal rights under the law (not religion) is okay. If you cannot give everyone equal rights, then fine, don't tax everyone equally. Last time I checked, that was the REASON the US was formed and the British colonies in the "Americas" fought to become independent. Have you heard of no taxation without representation? So how about this... If you don't want to give everyone equal governmental rights, then give those denied the rights a HUGE tax break. In fact, don't tax them at all.
You are so painfully wrong it's not funny. Either that or your one of the many people who lies about the bill. Go read it. Everything...EVERYTHING you said is 100% wrong. There is nothing in the bill about teaching kids anything about marriage in schools. Every education facility in the state has come out saying that Prop 8 changes nothing about how they deal with marriage. It would be ILLEGAL for a school to do such a thing. Trying to use this lie as an argument to support a bill that is made to take away someone's rights is sad. And wrong.
On a side note... It's strategically not a bad business move to align yourself with the global gay community. Many marketing studies have shown that the average disposable income of a gay household, age 35 and up, is 2.7 times that of the average straight household. Combine that with the fact that the gay community has a demonstrated 96% brand loyalty to companies that directly market to them, and you have a multi-billion dollar market waiting to be told where to spend their money. Think about the 6-12% of the global community that is gay (studies vary on this number, but most center around the 10% range) and that?s one of the most powerful buying communities on the planet. This is not secret and not new? Many companies know and understand this. I wouldn?t be amazed if the marketing team at Apple came up with the idea to donate? It?s the BEST direct marketing they could have ever done. For every pissed of straight household that refuses to buy a computer, you have 5 very happy, very loyal, very wealthy gay households with money to burn. And yes, it?s my job to know this. I?m a marketing manager for one of the lager private companies in the world.
On a side, side note, I don't understand how anyone can think denying someone equal rights under the law (not religion) is okay. If you cannot give everyone equal rights, then fine, don't tax everyone equally. Last time I checked, that was the REASON the US was formed and the British colonies in the "Americas" fought to become independent. Have you heard of no taxation without representation? So how about this... If you don't want to give everyone equal governmental rights, then give those denied the rights a HUGE tax break. In fact, don't tax them at all.
Absolutely not! There is no equality between a marriage between one man and one woman, and a marriage of same sex partners. Just because you're confused about the differences between the sexes does not mean that everyone else is. No, no, no! My vote has been cast.
Adios, I don't suffer fools, or those that stick their nose into the business of others.
Funny you say that because you are the fool here and the one sticking his nose into other people's business and the one who tries to tell others how to live their life.
Funny you say that because you are the fool here and the one sticking his nose into other people's business and the one who tries to tell others how to live their life.
Really, then tell me Einstein, why is it on the ballot? Hmmmmmmmm? Who is trying to change society to accept aberrant behavior as being normal? Every argument that you put forth can be used to let people marry animals, or to promote polygamy. We don't need to conform, you do!
Really, then tell me Einstein, why is it on the ballot? Hmmmmmmmm? Who is trying to change society to accept aberrant behavior as being normal? Every argument that you put forth can be used to let people marry animals, or to promote polygamy. We don't need to conform, you do!
The only aberrant behaviour here is the one displayed by you and your church of hatred.
I would have had more respect for you had you simply said, "sorry, this is just how I feel and what I believe." Instead, you resort to lying about the contents of Prop 8 and telling people they don't have the right to have an opinion - that you're right and they're wrong.
Congratulations. It's unfortunate that you don't suffer fools, considering you need to look in the mirror every morning.
Adios, I don't suffer fools, or those that stick their nose into the business of others.
Oh please. Seriously.
I believe there is a God. But I believe that humans have twisted "God's message" to fit into human beliefs of what is moral and immoral. The original biblical texts (at least the ones deemed to be valid by the church) were written in Hebrew. These were then interpreted and translated into the various versions we have now. For example, not only did the Catholic church decide which texts were from God and which were not, they decided what the words meant, even when it wasn't so clear. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that nowhere in the original texts does it say that homosexuality is a sin.
I'm not saying this is definitive proof of anything. What I am saying is, we have lost sight of the basic teaching from the bible, which is to love one another and to not pass judgment on others because, in reality, we are all flawed.
So you claim that the early church twisted things around and that the bible has been screwed up. Then you claim that we are missing the message that we're to love one another and not pass judgment on each other. But if the bible has been screwed up by men, then why should we believe that we are supposed to love each other? Maybe that wasn't originally in there, and the church screwed it up. And if the bible is screwed up, we can't believe it when it says we are not to pass judgment on each other. That may be a twisting of the original intent by the early church, not God's intent. If you argue that the bible is fundamentally flawed, then you can't use the argument that there is something valid about it.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Jesus says that we are to take the speck out of others' eyes -- but only after we've removed the planks from our own. It'd be like a dad who's having an affair telling his teenage daughter not to have sex. He can't do that with the plank in his eye -- his own affair. If he's taken the plank out of his eye (stopped the affair), THEN he can tell his daughter not to have sex.
I love what Jesus says right after that part about he plank and the spec, and judging others:
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
What he is saying is: don't try to impart wisdom to those who aren't worthy of it, don't try to correct someone who isn't willing to be corrected.
The only aberrant behaviour here is the one displayed by you and your church of hatred.
Realize that God hates sin. He loves sinners and wishes to change them.