I don't buy the point of view that children are born homosexual because that means children are born heterosexual and AFAIK children do not exhibit meaningful sexual behavior in any way.
I would hazard a guess that you do not have children. If you did I doubt very much you would say the above. Since I had my kids I have changed a lot in terms of my view on nature v nurture. And I am not alone. There are a lot of people who are so proud of they way they nurtured their child to become the cool little being he or she is. Then shock and horror, their second child is totally the opposite. And they (me) realize that kids grow up to be who and what they are irrespective of their parents' guidance. Don't get me wrong, as parents we matter a great deal in shaping the way in which our children behave and view the world, but very little in shaping who or what they become. If you wish your kid to be a math genius like yourself you just might find yourself with a child who will never get math and never care. No amount of nurture will change that.
Sexuality is at the very core of our being and we have little (I'd argue absolutely none whatsoever) control over that. Children may not be sexual beings but they grow into them very quickly. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have a friend with a 5 year old boy. Not a sexual being in any way but I am telling you - this kid can already out queen the best of them. Where does that come from? He may turn out to be gay, bi, or hetero (I'd wager the farm on gay), but what I do know is that no-one can alter what it will be. And good for him, he's a great kid.
I don't believe for one minute that any diehard Apple fans will switch, despite what some of them are saying on here. Buying an occasional burger from Wendy's instead of McDonalds is one thing. Changing your preferred hardware and software is quite another; especially when, as has already been pointed out, the alternative's policies on homosexuality suggest that they are in accord with Apple.
Homosexuality has never been 'someone's personal opinion', it is a fact of life and no amount of denial by any backward looking religion will alter that fact.
Apple loses my loyalty. I will buy apple products now, but will stop promoting apple to my friends and family. I won't defend apple products that aren't up to par and will switch companies if anything comes out that is equally or more practical for my needs. Apple just became less appealing.
It's not about whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. It's not about a backwards-looking religion - some things are valuable and worthwhile enough to fight to preserve.
Now, homosexuality is accepted as a lifestyle even if people don't agree with it and presumably bisexuals should have the same rights. But they are bisexual so they should be allowed to marry both a man and a woman? Ah but then we're talking about polygamy. But if you limit marriage to just one partner, aren't you being prejudiced against someone attracted to both sexes?
Re the first part of this .. (the second part is kind of silly) - Homosexuality is not accepted as a lifestyle in the sense that it is defined as such. There is definitely a gay lifestyle but by no means all gays lead this kind of life. There is also a definite Biker (as in MC's) lifestyle but not all motorcyclists lead this kind of life. So the gay lifestyle may be a chosen one and you may object as you may object to bikers wearing leathers, but your sexuality is not chosen. I can prove that, too. Put aside your (not yours personally) prejudices and change your sexual orientation for a week, or a day. Do it in earnest and see how far you get. Please report back ;-)
No, it's because of all the issues, this one effects the least percentage of people, and taking a stand against gay marriage makes him look a bit more conservative. I really have so much respect for Barack Obama, and he definitely has my vote, not because he's a democrat - before I knew anything about him or heard him speak about issues I was quite on the fence about him - but because he seems to be very intelligent, strong and has an aim to treat people fairly. But this issue really stinks. I wish he would be as outspoken as Colin Powell, but if he gets into office I have hopes he will be.
So, you're saying you've joined the cult of personality. Ok, fair enough.
With a democratic congress and possibly a magic 60 democratic senators you should really think about this as much, much more than Obama vs McCain because no one party should ever have control over all of it - especially the magic 60. The last time that happened was in the 76 election and not a single positive thing came out of that group in DC. Ideally I'd like to vote for a moderate (a bit more moderate than McCain and certainly much, much, much more moderate than Obama, his record on "working across the aisle" is pretty bad) but there is no moderate party just a bunch of my way or the highway idiots - sad...
Morris Thurston, an active Mormon who received his undergraduate degree in political science from BYU and his law degree from Harvard Law School, recently critiqued the anonymously published list of talking points (frequently reported by supporters, as above) because they were false and misleading:
“Most of the arguments contained in “Six Consequences [the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails]” are either untrue or misleading. The following commentary addresses those arguments and explains how they are based on misinterpretations of law and fact. My intent is to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.”
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
Response: This is untrue. California Education Code 51890 provides that “pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health.” The focus is on health. The statute provides for community participation, including lectures by practicing professional health and safety personnel from the community. Things that are to be taught include, for example drug use and misuse, nutrition, exercise, diseases and disorders, environmental health and safety, as well as “family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.”
Another section of the Education Code (51933) deals with comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. It provides that instruction shall be age appropriate and medically accurate, shall teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships,” and shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents about human sexuality.
Therefore, no provision of the Education Code requires any teacher to teach that same‐sex marriage is “just as good” as traditional marriage. Teachers are to teach respect for marriage and committed relationships, and Proposition 8 will not change this law.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public.
Response: This false “consequence” is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8.
What was the New Jersey case about? The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use.
The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. “Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It’s even been used for debates and Civil War re‐enactments.”3 It was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claim a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, they could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained only to the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax assessed was $200. The OGCMA continues to receive a property tax exemption for the remaining 99% of its property.
This case has nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church’s chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church’s income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New Jersey exemption and likely never would.
The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self‐evident because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic
Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
Response: Another misrepresentation. To begin with, it should be noted that Catholic Charities in Boston was not forced to close its doors—indeed it is still very active. (See its website at http://www.ccab.org.) Rather, Cathol...ased providing
adoption service in Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe, Catholic Charities elected to close its doors in protest over the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and because it was reluctant to undertake a lawsuit that might be lost.
LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non‐voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children
with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.
If this situation ever faces a legal challenge in California, it will not matter whether Proposition 8 passes because California already has on its books (and has for several years) laws granting domestic partners (homosexual and heterosexual) the same civil rights as married couples. This is a point that many people seem not to understand. Here is the language of just one California statute: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
Therefore, the passage or failure of Proposition 8 will have no effect on the placement of orphans with gay couples in California.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
Response: This claim relates to an experience at Yeshiva University in New York. Gay students were eligible for University housing, but their partners were not able to join them because they did not have marriage certificates. It should be noted that Yeshiva University (despite its name) is chartered as a nonsectarian institution, enabling it to receive state and federal funding. The New York court found that Yeshiva was discriminating against the students based on their sexual orientation—not their marital status. The ruling was based on New York City non‐discrimination laws.
California’s existing non‐discrimination laws give all registered domestic partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the right of equal access to family housing. To date, however, no California private religious school has been forced to comply with this law. Neither the passage nor the failure of Proposition 8 will have any bearing on the law relating to family student housing in California.
The gay marriage problem will not arise at BYU and other Church universities because engaging in homosexual activity is a violation of the honor code and is a basis for expulsion from the University. These rules will not be overturned merely because California recognizes gay marriages, any more than they have been because Massachusetts, Canada and many European nations recognize them.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees my not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
Response: Of course, anyone can be “sued” for anything, but no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same‐sex marriages. The Owens case, on which this statement is based, was brought well before gay marriage was legal in Canada and did not involve a minister, but a private citizen. In that case, a man named Hugh Owens produced bumper stickers and took out an ad that depicted two stick figures holding hands, covered by a circle and a slash, along with a reference to a passage in Leviticus that says that a man engaging in homosexual activity “shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” The lower court ruled that this amounted to hate speech, but the decision was overturned on review. The current Canadian law on hate propaganda excludes any speech if it is spoken during a private conversation or if the person uttering the speech “is attempting in good faith to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.”10Thus, even ministers who preach against same‐sex marriages in Canada have no risk of legal liability or government fines.
This would never be an issue in the United States because we have far more liberal freedom of speech and religion laws than does Canada.11 There have been no hate speech lawsuits in Massachusetts, which has been a gay marriage state for four years.
The description of the recent California case is another fabrication. This case is Good News Employee Association v. Hicks, which was decided before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriages and so it, too, has nothing to do with Proposition 8. The
plaintiffs in that case were evangelical Christians (not homosexuals) who posted flyers around the offices of the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency promoting their “Good News Association” and calling on those who read the flyer to
“preserve our workplace with integrity … with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.” In other words, this group was promoting the idea of ridding their workplace of gay people—a blatantly homophobic message and highly offensive not
only to several gay people who worked there but to heterosexual co‐workers as well. The supervisors removed the flyers. The Good News people sued, claiming their rights of free speech were violated. The court found that the agency was entitled to eliminate the workplace disruption the flyers were causing and noted that there were any other ways for this group to promote their message without resorting to such offensive tactics.
This case does not hold that municipal employees are prohibited from saying “traditional marriage” or “family values” and it has nothing to do with gay marriage, or ministers preaching, or Proposition 8. Indeed, the court specifically found that there were many other ways for these people to get their message out without disrupting the workplace by creating an atmosphere of persecution.
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
Response: The argument concerning cost is fallacious and calculated to engender fear. In actuality, the net fiscal effect of Proposition 8 will be an influx of revenue to California because of the anticipated increase in marriage ceremonies and the related boon to the economy. The change in the definition of marriage will not bring a “cascade of lawsuits” because heterosexual and homosexual registered domestic partners already have all the rights of married couples in California. None of the lawsuits alluded to in this paragraph has anything to do with gay marriage.
The wedding photographer case was in New Mexico, a state that has no gay marriage law. The medical doctor case was in California, but was based on our existing non‐discrimination laws and would not be affected one way or the other by the passage of Proposition 8.
Apple loses my loyalty. I will buy apple products now, but will stop promoting apple to my friends and family. I won't defend apple products that aren't up to par and will switch companies if anything comes out that is equally or more practical for my needs. Apple just became less appealing.
Wouldn't you do this anyway? I know I would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeyslaptop
It's not about whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. It's not about a backwards-looking religion - some things are valuable and worthwhile enough to fight to preserve.
Agreed; some things are, but in this instance, what exactly do feel is worth fighting to preserve, and what are preserving it from?
So, you're saying you've joined the cult of personality. Ok, fair enough.
With a democratic congress and possibly a magic 60 democratic senators you should really think about this as much, much more than Obama vs McCain because no one party should ever have control over all of it - especially the magic 60. The last time that happened was in the 76 election and not a single positive thing came out of that group in DC. Ideally I'd like to vote for a moderate (a bit more moderate than McCain and certainly much, much, much more moderate than Obama, his record on "working across the aisle" is pretty bad) but there is no moderate party just a bunch of my way or the highway idiots - sad...
No, that is precisely opposite from what I have said. I am not a big fan of Obama's personality. In fact, I think he is lacking one. It is over the last two months that I have come to understand the things he stands for that he has made me appreciate him.
We had Republicans in control for 5 years, only mixed it up the last two, and look waht good that did! My feeling is that Obama is the man who will bring this country out of the red, and this is based, NO MOST DEFINITELY NOT on the hype. Again, I hated the hype. I was actually quite turned off by that celebrity song based on his speach. My feeling of inspiration comes from what the man has said and the earnest quality of character that I have perceived in him.
You are correct but God forbid that people only ever speak out when it is the safe or popular thing to do. If that were the case, who would ever stand up for the rights of the minority?
I can't pass up tossing in my two sense on this huge thread, and I thought this was a nice line to quote. Wonderful.
Anyway, I believe Apple has the right to support this. Critics are trying to paint it as a "political" move, but that is only true if you believe homosexuality is a politically motivated state of being. I think civil rights is a better category.
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.
Holey shit, you mean to tell me they teach marriage in school now?
Hell I learned how to get laid in school, not married,what's this world coming to. How about" Thou shalt not be stupid" The big question do you believe that if they learn about marriages, they will have to be taught the difference between gay and straight. An why is that?? Now sex education is another thing, do gays have he same rights, and do gays know if their gay in Kindergarden? Do we have separate classes?
No, that is precisely opposite from what I have said. I am not a big fan of Obama's personality. In fact, I think he is lacking one. It is over the last two months that I have come to understand the things he stands for that he has made me appreciate him.
We had Republicans in control for 5 years, only mixed it up the last two, and look waht good that did! My feeling is that Obama is the man who will bring this country out of the red, and this is based, NO MOST DEFINITELY NOT on the hype. Again, I hated the hype. I was actually quite turned off by that celebrity song based on his speach. My feeling of inspiration comes from what the man has said and the earnest quality of character that I have perceived in him.
That is his personality. All the things you said are exactly what the cult of personality is all about. You thought 4 years of republicans was bad? They never had the magic 60, just wait until this cluster f*ck when the minority is completely and totally ignored...
Agreed. It really makes me very sad. And a bit angry, but I'm old enough to realize anger begets anger. So I'm just trying to have faith that folks will come to see the light.
Abraham Lincoln, although he had a wife and four or five children, also had extremely close relationships with men. In fact, he lived with one, Joshua Speed, through to the end of his life. And they slept in the same bed. He also slept with his body guard, David Derickson, when his wife was away, and folks gossiped about it.
On top of that, he wrote a poem when he was young about two men marrying. Although the poem (which did not center on gay marriage) was comical (and certainly did not condemn the marriage of two males) at the very least this proves that Lincoln had considered the idea of two men marrying as a concept.
Whether the great and much respected President Abraham Lincoln was bisexual is obviously up for debate. But face it, folks... there has been homosexuality in our culture for a very very long time, and it has done absolutely no harm whatsoever to heterosexual folk. It has not eroded family values one bit. And some of our best citizens have been at the very least bisexual.
A young boy watching Queer Eye, or Will and Grace is only going to get the idea to experiment with homosexuality if that desire lies within his heart to begin with. If anything, perhaps guys will be influenced to take better care of their image, but that too is an obnoxious stereotype. I'm gay and couldn't give a **** about the way I look. My house is not overly designed. I do not swish around effeminately. But I smile at that kind of behavior, as it's yet another manifestation of life.
Why do so many folks have to be afraid of things that are different? Can't you imagine that human culture is like a great piece of music with lots of different movements and sound textures? If it was all twangy country wouldn't you get a bit bored?
what a load of cobblers, vacuity of thought coupled with political correctness
Does he? Whatever his reasoning, at the minimum it should be decided by the states, but ideally government would be 'divorced' from having any say regarding this issue.
Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, et.al, all stated they were against Same Sex Marriages, but have no problem with Civil Unions.
As a long--time Apple lover, and as an Apple promoter to all of my friends, I find this upsetting. Apple needs to stay out of politics. Did it learn nothing from Disney?
I love apple, and God knows a lot of gay people are instrumental to the success of Apple. I love my Mac, which was designed by a gay guy, make a living with Final Cut Pro (also created by a gay man). I owe a lot to Apple. I won't stand for Apple attacking and trying to diminish my marriage though.
------
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Anyone who understands what marriage is understands that. Even a business marriage fails if it is not based on combined production of some sort. This is idiocy.
Proposition 8 is about protecting a class that needs protection. It's about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principles at stake of a traditional marriage warrant the creation of a protected class.
Marriage is not a Civil Right, period. It's a Choice for any gender. The Human Species doesn't have to marry to ensure the continuation of the species. Whether you are gay, straight or whatever, your respect and maturity in raising offspring, through birth or adoption falls squarely on your conscience and your intelligence to provide a safe, active and educational home for a child. I could careless if two kids were in a home of 50 straight men, women, both or their homosexual equivalents. Your sexual preference will never dictate your maturity and competency in managing to raise responsible adults for future generations.
I'd argue that there already are a large portion of both sexual preferences in Society that will never be capable of responsibly raising children, whether they adopt or have natural child birth. We already have a large group of children raising children and they aren't evolving the species. One could point out that our species is having a problem with adapting to the sheer numbers on this planet, but that's something people have a hard time discussing--overcrowding.
Right now, we have entirely too many children in foster care and even orphanages around the globe. There are those who want to adopt and regardless of sexual preference aren't qualifying to do so, for varying reasons.
Here we are in the 21st century arguing over the right for same sex members of the Human species to be recognized that they too can be miserably married.
To each their own.
With the population problems of the Globe you'd think people would be consciously aware that the species has a broad spectrum of life and the means to keep itself sustainable on this planet.
I get questioned for being twice divorced and having no children. I'm glad I don't have kids as I approach the age of 40. If I do ever have another marriage and she and I have a child, so be it. I sure as hell am not going to turn to the Government for support--it's my responsibility to keep my life within my means.
I am astounded to hear people think that religion is the the main cause of the world's ills. Easy to think that when one doesn't know the details of religion. I guess they also think all black people look the same and are the same.
Just cause some lunatic claims to be Christian doesn't mean he actually is one. Jesus said love your enemy. So anybody who does evil in the name of Christianity is proving they are not a Christian. So quit using this flawed reason.
He also admonished us to love our neighbors as we do ourselves! I don't prevent you from marrying, so please don't stop me. This makes me question your claim to Christianity with this flawed argument, so quit it, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by visionary
Since the beginning of recorded history, one man has tried to lord it over another. Most religions says this is wrong. Obviously the guy trying to lord it over the others cannot stand people who say we should treat others as equals.
Sound familiar at all? Why as a homosexual am I not equal and entitled to the same rights as you are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by visionary
Because of this, people who try to lord it over others have sought to counter true religion by claiming to have God on their side. It is indeed rare to find any war without some claim of divine support. It is then easy for the uninformed to see this as religion being the cause of the problems. But religion really had nothing to do with the cause of the problems; it was an excuse.
But you are right about gay marriage because God is on your side, no?
Comments
I don't buy the point of view that children are born homosexual because that means children are born heterosexual and AFAIK children do not exhibit meaningful sexual behavior in any way.
I would hazard a guess that you do not have children. If you did I doubt very much you would say the above. Since I had my kids I have changed a lot in terms of my view on nature v nurture. And I am not alone. There are a lot of people who are so proud of they way they nurtured their child to become the cool little being he or she is. Then shock and horror, their second child is totally the opposite. And they (me) realize that kids grow up to be who and what they are irrespective of their parents' guidance. Don't get me wrong, as parents we matter a great deal in shaping the way in which our children behave and view the world, but very little in shaping who or what they become. If you wish your kid to be a math genius like yourself you just might find yourself with a child who will never get math and never care. No amount of nurture will change that.
Sexuality is at the very core of our being and we have little (I'd argue absolutely none whatsoever) control over that. Children may not be sexual beings but they grow into them very quickly. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have a friend with a 5 year old boy. Not a sexual being in any way but I am telling you - this kid can already out queen the best of them. Where does that come from? He may turn out to be gay, bi, or hetero (I'd wager the farm on gay), but what I do know is that no-one can alter what it will be. And good for him, he's a great kid.
I don't believe for one minute that any diehard Apple fans will switch, despite what some of them are saying on here. Buying an occasional burger from Wendy's instead of McDonalds is one thing. Changing your preferred hardware and software is quite another; especially when, as has already been pointed out, the alternative's policies on homosexuality suggest that they are in accord with Apple.
Homosexuality has never been 'someone's personal opinion', it is a fact of life and no amount of denial by any backward looking religion will alter that fact.
Apple loses my loyalty. I will buy apple products now, but will stop promoting apple to my friends and family. I won't defend apple products that aren't up to par and will switch companies if anything comes out that is equally or more practical for my needs. Apple just became less appealing.
It's not about whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. It's not about a backwards-looking religion - some things are valuable and worthwhile enough to fight to preserve.
Now, homosexuality is accepted as a lifestyle even if people don't agree with it and presumably bisexuals should have the same rights. But they are bisexual so they should be allowed to marry both a man and a woman? Ah but then we're talking about polygamy. But if you limit marriage to just one partner, aren't you being prejudiced against someone attracted to both sexes?
Re the first part of this .. (the second part is kind of silly) - Homosexuality is not accepted as a lifestyle in the sense that it is defined as such. There is definitely a gay lifestyle but by no means all gays lead this kind of life. There is also a definite Biker (as in MC's) lifestyle but not all motorcyclists lead this kind of life. So the gay lifestyle may be a chosen one and you may object as you may object to bikers wearing leathers, but your sexuality is not chosen. I can prove that, too. Put aside your (not yours personally) prejudices and change your sexual orientation for a week, or a day. Do it in earnest and see how far you get. Please report back ;-)
No, it's because of all the issues, this one effects the least percentage of people, and taking a stand against gay marriage makes him look a bit more conservative. I really have so much respect for Barack Obama, and he definitely has my vote, not because he's a democrat - before I knew anything about him or heard him speak about issues I was quite on the fence about him - but because he seems to be very intelligent, strong and has an aim to treat people fairly. But this issue really stinks. I wish he would be as outspoken as Colin Powell, but if he gets into office I have hopes he will be.
So, you're saying you've joined the cult of personality. Ok, fair enough.
With a democratic congress and possibly a magic 60 democratic senators you should really think about this as much, much more than Obama vs McCain because no one party should ever have control over all of it - especially the magic 60. The last time that happened was in the 76 election and not a single positive thing came out of that group in DC. Ideally I'd like to vote for a moderate (a bit more moderate than McCain and certainly much, much, much more moderate than Obama, his record on "working across the aisle" is pretty bad) but there is no moderate party just a bunch of my way or the highway idiots - sad...
“Most of the arguments contained in “Six Consequences [the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails]” are either untrue or misleading. The following commentary addresses those arguments and explains how they are based on misinterpretations of law and fact. My intent is to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.”
http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Thurston-Memo.pdf
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
Response: This is untrue. California Education Code 51890 provides that “pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health.” The focus is on health. The statute provides for community participation, including lectures by practicing professional health and safety personnel from the community. Things that are to be taught include, for example drug use and misuse, nutrition, exercise, diseases and disorders, environmental health and safety, as well as “family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.”
Another section of the Education Code (51933) deals with comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. It provides that instruction shall be age appropriate and medically accurate, shall teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships,” and shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents about human sexuality.
Therefore, no provision of the Education Code requires any teacher to teach that same‐sex marriage is “just as good” as traditional marriage. Teachers are to teach respect for marriage and committed relationships, and Proposition 8 will not change this law.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public.
Response: This false “consequence” is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8.
What was the New Jersey case about? The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use.
The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. “Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It’s even been used for debates and Civil War re‐enactments.”3 It was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claim a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, they could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained only to the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax assessed was $200. The OGCMA continues to receive a property tax exemption for the remaining 99% of its property.
This case has nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church’s chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church’s income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New Jersey exemption and likely never would.
The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self‐evident because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic
Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
Response: Another misrepresentation. To begin with, it should be noted that Catholic Charities in Boston was not forced to close its doors—indeed it is still very active. (See its website at http://www.ccab.org.) Rather, Cathol...ased providing
adoption service in Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe, Catholic Charities elected to close its doors in protest over the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and because it was reluctant to undertake a lawsuit that might be lost.
LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non‐voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children
with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.
If this situation ever faces a legal challenge in California, it will not matter whether Proposition 8 passes because California already has on its books (and has for several years) laws granting domestic partners (homosexual and heterosexual) the same civil rights as married couples. This is a point that many people seem not to understand. Here is the language of just one California statute: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
Therefore, the passage or failure of Proposition 8 will have no effect on the placement of orphans with gay couples in California.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
Response: This claim relates to an experience at Yeshiva University in New York. Gay students were eligible for University housing, but their partners were not able to join them because they did not have marriage certificates. It should be noted that Yeshiva University (despite its name) is chartered as a nonsectarian institution, enabling it to receive state and federal funding. The New York court found that Yeshiva was discriminating against the students based on their sexual orientation—not their marital status. The ruling was based on New York City non‐discrimination laws.
California’s existing non‐discrimination laws give all registered domestic partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the right of equal access to family housing. To date, however, no California private religious school has been forced to comply with this law. Neither the passage nor the failure of Proposition 8 will have any bearing on the law relating to family student housing in California.
The gay marriage problem will not arise at BYU and other Church universities because engaging in homosexual activity is a violation of the honor code and is a basis for expulsion from the University. These rules will not be overturned merely because California recognizes gay marriages, any more than they have been because Massachusetts, Canada and many European nations recognize them.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees my not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
Response: Of course, anyone can be “sued” for anything, but no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same‐sex marriages. The Owens case, on which this statement is based, was brought well before gay marriage was legal in Canada and did not involve a minister, but a private citizen. In that case, a man named Hugh Owens produced bumper stickers and took out an ad that depicted two stick figures holding hands, covered by a circle and a slash, along with a reference to a passage in Leviticus that says that a man engaging in homosexual activity “shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” The lower court ruled that this amounted to hate speech, but the decision was overturned on review. The current Canadian law on hate propaganda excludes any speech if it is spoken during a private conversation or if the person uttering the speech “is attempting in good faith to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.”10Thus, even ministers who preach against same‐sex marriages in Canada have no risk of legal liability or government fines.
This would never be an issue in the United States because we have far more liberal freedom of speech and religion laws than does Canada.11 There have been no hate speech lawsuits in Massachusetts, which has been a gay marriage state for four years.
The description of the recent California case is another fabrication. This case is Good News Employee Association v. Hicks, which was decided before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriages and so it, too, has nothing to do with Proposition 8. The
plaintiffs in that case were evangelical Christians (not homosexuals) who posted flyers around the offices of the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency promoting their “Good News Association” and calling on those who read the flyer to
“preserve our workplace with integrity … with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.” In other words, this group was promoting the idea of ridding their workplace of gay people—a blatantly homophobic message and highly offensive not
only to several gay people who worked there but to heterosexual co‐workers as well. The supervisors removed the flyers. The Good News people sued, claiming their rights of free speech were violated. The court found that the agency was entitled to eliminate the workplace disruption the flyers were causing and noted that there were any other ways for this group to promote their message without resorting to such offensive tactics.
This case does not hold that municipal employees are prohibited from saying “traditional marriage” or “family values” and it has nothing to do with gay marriage, or ministers preaching, or Proposition 8. Indeed, the court specifically found that there were many other ways for these people to get their message out without disrupting the workplace by creating an atmosphere of persecution.
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
Response: The argument concerning cost is fallacious and calculated to engender fear. In actuality, the net fiscal effect of Proposition 8 will be an influx of revenue to California because of the anticipated increase in marriage ceremonies and the related boon to the economy. The change in the definition of marriage will not bring a “cascade of lawsuits” because heterosexual and homosexual registered domestic partners already have all the rights of married couples in California. None of the lawsuits alluded to in this paragraph has anything to do with gay marriage.
The wedding photographer case was in New Mexico, a state that has no gay marriage law. The medical doctor case was in California, but was based on our existing non‐discrimination laws and would not be affected one way or the other by the passage of Proposition 8.
Response:*This*is*untrue.*California*Education*Cod e*51890*provides*that*?pupils*will*
receive*instruction*to*aid*them*in*making*decision s*in*matters*of*personal,*family,*and*
community*health.?*The*focus*is*on*health.*The*st atute*provides*for*community*
participation,*including*lectures*by*practicing*pr ofessional*health*and*safety*
personnel*from*the*community.**Things*that*are*to* be*taught*include,*for*example drug*use*and*misuse,*nutrition,*exercise,*diseases *and*disorders,*environmental*health*
and*safety,*as*well*as*?family*health*and*child*d evelopment,*including*the*legal*and*
financial*aspects*and*re........
Apple loses my loyalty. I will buy apple products now, but will stop promoting apple to my friends and family. I won't defend apple products that aren't up to par and will switch companies if anything comes out that is equally or more practical for my needs. Apple just became less appealing.
Wouldn't you do this anyway? I know I would.
It's not about whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. It's not about a backwards-looking religion - some things are valuable and worthwhile enough to fight to preserve.
Agreed; some things are, but in this instance, what exactly do feel is worth fighting to preserve, and what are preserving it from?
So, you're saying you've joined the cult of personality. Ok, fair enough.
With a democratic congress and possibly a magic 60 democratic senators you should really think about this as much, much more than Obama vs McCain because no one party should ever have control over all of it - especially the magic 60. The last time that happened was in the 76 election and not a single positive thing came out of that group in DC. Ideally I'd like to vote for a moderate (a bit more moderate than McCain and certainly much, much, much more moderate than Obama, his record on "working across the aisle" is pretty bad) but there is no moderate party just a bunch of my way or the highway idiots - sad...
No, that is precisely opposite from what I have said. I am not a big fan of Obama's personality. In fact, I think he is lacking one. It is over the last two months that I have come to understand the things he stands for that he has made me appreciate him.
We had Republicans in control for 5 years, only mixed it up the last two, and look waht good that did! My feeling is that Obama is the man who will bring this country out of the red, and this is based, NO MOST DEFINITELY NOT on the hype. Again, I hated the hype. I was actually quite turned off by that celebrity song based on his speach. My feeling of inspiration comes from what the man has said and the earnest quality of character that I have perceived in him.
You are correct but God forbid that people only ever speak out when it is the safe or popular thing to do. If that were the case, who would ever stand up for the rights of the minority?
I can't pass up tossing in my two sense on this huge thread, and I thought this was a nice line to quote. Wonderful.
Anyway, I believe Apple has the right to support this. Critics are trying to paint it as a "political" move, but that is only true if you believe homosexuality is a politically motivated state of being. I think civil rights is a better category.
Go Apple.
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.
Holey shit, you mean to tell me they teach marriage in school now?
Hell I learned how to get laid in school, not married,what's this world coming to. How about" Thou shalt not be stupid" The big question do you believe that if they learn about marriages, they will have to be taught the difference between gay and straight. An why is that?? Now sex education is another thing, do gays have he same rights, and do gays know if their gay in Kindergarden? Do we have separate classes?
No, that is precisely opposite from what I have said. I am not a big fan of Obama's personality. In fact, I think he is lacking one. It is over the last two months that I have come to understand the things he stands for that he has made me appreciate him.
We had Republicans in control for 5 years, only mixed it up the last two, and look waht good that did! My feeling is that Obama is the man who will bring this country out of the red, and this is based, NO MOST DEFINITELY NOT on the hype. Again, I hated the hype. I was actually quite turned off by that celebrity song based on his speach. My feeling of inspiration comes from what the man has said and the earnest quality of character that I have perceived in him.
That is his personality. All the things you said are exactly what the cult of personality is all about. You thought 4 years of republicans was bad? They never had the magic 60, just wait until this cluster f*ck when the minority is completely and totally ignored...
please go back to your own woodwork (closet), sarges.
nah no need to join you there Vincenzo, you seem to inhabit a twilight world of confused morals and political ideologies
Agreed. It really makes me very sad. And a bit angry, but I'm old enough to realize anger begets anger. So I'm just trying to have faith that folks will come to see the light.
Abraham Lincoln, although he had a wife and four or five children, also had extremely close relationships with men. In fact, he lived with one, Joshua Speed, through to the end of his life. And they slept in the same bed. He also slept with his body guard, David Derickson, when his wife was away, and folks gossiped about it.
On top of that, he wrote a poem when he was young about two men marrying. Although the poem (which did not center on gay marriage) was comical (and certainly did not condemn the marriage of two males) at the very least this proves that Lincoln had considered the idea of two men marrying as a concept.
Whether the great and much respected President Abraham Lincoln was bisexual is obviously up for debate. But face it, folks... there has been homosexuality in our culture for a very very long time, and it has done absolutely no harm whatsoever to heterosexual folk. It has not eroded family values one bit. And some of our best citizens have been at the very least bisexual.
A young boy watching Queer Eye, or Will and Grace is only going to get the idea to experiment with homosexuality if that desire lies within his heart to begin with. If anything, perhaps guys will be influenced to take better care of their image, but that too is an obnoxious stereotype. I'm gay and couldn't give a **** about the way I look. My house is not overly designed. I do not swish around effeminately. But I smile at that kind of behavior, as it's yet another manifestation of life.
Why do so many folks have to be afraid of things that are different? Can't you imagine that human culture is like a great piece of music with lots of different movements and sound textures? If it was all twangy country wouldn't you get a bit bored?
what a load of cobblers, vacuity of thought coupled with political correctness
Does he? Whatever his reasoning, at the minimum it should be decided by the states, but ideally government would be 'divorced' from having any say regarding this issue.
Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, et.al, all stated they were against Same Sex Marriages, but have no problem with Civil Unions.
what a load of cobblers, vacuity of thought coupled with political correctness
hahah, I don't think the suggestion that Abraham Lincoln was bisexual is in the least politically correct.
As a long--time Apple lover, and as an Apple promoter to all of my friends, I find this upsetting. Apple needs to stay out of politics. Did it learn nothing from Disney?
I love apple, and God knows a lot of gay people are instrumental to the success of Apple. I love my Mac, which was designed by a gay guy, make a living with Final Cut Pro (also created by a gay man). I owe a lot to Apple. I won't stand for Apple attacking and trying to diminish my marriage though.
------
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Anyone who understands what marriage is understands that. Even a business marriage fails if it is not based on combined production of some sort. This is idiocy.
Proposition 8 is about protecting a class that needs protection. It's about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principles at stake of a traditional marriage warrant the creation of a protected class.
Marriage is not a Civil Right, period. It's a Choice for any gender. The Human Species doesn't have to marry to ensure the continuation of the species. Whether you are gay, straight or whatever, your respect and maturity in raising offspring, through birth or adoption falls squarely on your conscience and your intelligence to provide a safe, active and educational home for a child. I could careless if two kids were in a home of 50 straight men, women, both or their homosexual equivalents. Your sexual preference will never dictate your maturity and competency in managing to raise responsible adults for future generations.
I'd argue that there already are a large portion of both sexual preferences in Society that will never be capable of responsibly raising children, whether they adopt or have natural child birth. We already have a large group of children raising children and they aren't evolving the species. One could point out that our species is having a problem with adapting to the sheer numbers on this planet, but that's something people have a hard time discussing--overcrowding.
Right now, we have entirely too many children in foster care and even orphanages around the globe. There are those who want to adopt and regardless of sexual preference aren't qualifying to do so, for varying reasons.
Here we are in the 21st century arguing over the right for same sex members of the Human species to be recognized that they too can be miserably married.
To each their own.
With the population problems of the Globe you'd think people would be consciously aware that the species has a broad spectrum of life and the means to keep itself sustainable on this planet.
I get questioned for being twice divorced and having no children. I'm glad I don't have kids as I approach the age of 40. If I do ever have another marriage and she and I have a child, so be it. I sure as hell am not going to turn to the Government for support--it's my responsibility to keep my life within my means.
hahah, I don't think the suggestion that Abraham Lincoln was bisexual is in the least politically correct.
Vincenzo, has it occurred to you that this is an Apple forum and not a fruity forum?
I am astounded to hear people think that religion is the the main cause of the world's ills. Easy to think that when one doesn't know the details of religion. I guess they also think all black people look the same and are the same.
Just cause some lunatic claims to be Christian doesn't mean he actually is one. Jesus said love your enemy. So anybody who does evil in the name of Christianity is proving they are not a Christian. So quit using this flawed reason.
He also admonished us to love our neighbors as we do ourselves! I don't prevent you from marrying, so please don't stop me. This makes me question your claim to Christianity with this flawed argument, so quit it, please.
Since the beginning of recorded history, one man has tried to lord it over another. Most religions says this is wrong. Obviously the guy trying to lord it over the others cannot stand people who say we should treat others as equals.
Sound familiar at all? Why as a homosexual am I not equal and entitled to the same rights as you are?
Because of this, people who try to lord it over others have sought to counter true religion by claiming to have God on their side. It is indeed rare to find any war without some claim of divine support. It is then easy for the uninformed to see this as religion being the cause of the problems. But religion really had nothing to do with the cause of the problems; it was an excuse.
But you are right about gay marriage because God is on your side, no?