first of all, this is a civil issue (one that, on this forum, should concern only how it might affect apple ... i might take the long way, but i'll get to that). despite the inspiration many of the framers took from religion, many others were decidedly nonreligious. they agreed, however, on the separation of church and state. as such, the views of religious institutions should not impact domestic policy. so if you disagree on religious grounds, that's perfectly fine, but don't use it as the basis for wanting a DOMA on a state or federal level. you need to prove that gay marriage would be unconstitutional.
and speaking of unconstitutional things, judges are not required or expected to obey the will of the people ... they are tasked with weighing the laws against the constitution. so by "legislating from the bench," they are simply doing the job we've given them (in an ideal world ... it would be naive to assume none let personal opinion to slip in). they strike down or uphold laws according to their constitutional duties.
the fallacy with asking why pro-gay marriage groups are pushing this (since many rights are already afforded them) is that it goes back to "separate-but-equal."
surprise, it's not all that equal.
to summarize this increasingly lengthy post, apple is simply going with what's best for the company, while staying true to their beliefs. they reside in a left-leaning state with a more active homosexual community, public policy seems to be drifting in the direction of either marriage or civil unions for homosexual companies (and they can appear to be forward-thinking), and they can keep a large part of their work force proud of the company they work for. they might lose a few shareholders, customers or employees as a result, but the long-term benefits far outweigh those losses.
oh, and on a personal note, if i see the phrases "nancy boy" or "fruit" again, i might blow a gasket. i'm a straight man, but something about that whole "all men are created equal" just stuck with me.
maybe it's just me.
It's not just you. I cannot tolerate the whole "sub-human" designation given to other people based on their race, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, etc...
And there is 'one more thing'... Apple under Jobs has been an activist company. Their stance on increasing the recyclability and eliminating toxins in Apple products costs them more, but they know their customers (largely a family and youth-oriented group) appreciate the effort.
Finally, no silence here... I'm voting for Governor Palin! Senator McCain, can come along for the ride. Although we will have to wait until Nov. 4th for the ultimate conclusion, if she wins, it will be the ultimate poke in the eye to every leftist elitist
Can you elaborate and explain this elitism of which you speak?
I firmly support putting this measure on the ballot because it's a complete and total sham that appointed judges can over rule the will of the people in a democracy. The only power the people have over the judges is an amendment and we're going to continue to see this as people realize that passing laws doesn't mean a d@mn thing when some judge decides that his/her interpretation of the law says it's illegal.
I still think if judges are going to overturn a law they should need the same 2/3 majority that congress needs to overrule a presidential veto...
EDIT: The idea of checks and balances is, at this point, nothing more than idea and should BO win and the Democrats get the magic 60 in the Senate you can say goodbye to any attempt of catering to the minority. And by minority I mean republicans - crazy huh? I wonder if saying you're a republican will get you a scholarship when going to college...
Marriage used to only be between two people of the same race. For 98 years that was the law in California until the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT declared the law unconstitutional in 1948 (Perez v. Sharp). The US SUPREME COURT overturned all other state laws banning interracial marriage in 1967 (Lovings v. Virginia). Those people who argue about "activist judges" and that gay marriage doesn't fit the "traditional" definition of marriage and that gay marriage will ruin the institution are using the same exact arguments racists used to justify keeping bans on interracial marriages. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
I'm heterosexual. Some of the families in my neighborhood are headed by same sex parents. The children in those families are friends with my kids. They are now adults and doing very well. Some children in my neighborhood have to deal with troubled heterosexual parents, single parents, divorced parents and separated parents. Some children in my neighborhood aren't doing so well. So why is one better? You can't predict. Isn't it about being successful and happy.
Can you elaborate and explain this elitism of which you speak?
None are more blind, then those who will not see! Okay, I'll elaborate a little more.
If you're Hollywood ie. Matt Damon and can say Palin for VP is like a bad Disney movie, knowing, that even though you have no other outstanding credentials other that being a famous movie star, your opinion will be picked up by both the media news and to shows like Extra, etc. and be given validation.
If you're Hollywood ie. Demi Moore / Ashton Kutcher and can be at a university symposium and voice your opposition to policies even though you have no other outstanding credentials other that being a famous movie star, and your opinion will be picked up by the media news and be given validation.
BUT if you're "Joe the Plumber" where only by fate do you find a bunch of news cameras in your face and that one reply, to a simple question can bring the wrath of the media elite doing more vetting of you, Joe the plumber, then for Barry the politician, yeah, I think that is ELITISM! (see elitism defined below)
Elite - defined - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
How about if your the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers being confront by a Fox News reporter and for once in your life your at a loss for words and have to call the police to escort you from your home to your car so no more embarrassing questions, that you gave no answers to in the first place, will be brought upon you. Bill Ayers the domestic terrorist is now depending upon the very organization (the police) who were his targets he tried to destroy when he bombed the NYPD! I bet he probably needed to get to his car to arrive on time to a University symposium or a magazine interview where he could pronounce his anarchist ways and that he wasn't sorry for bombing the NYPD Police Headquarters or a photo shoot where he can step on the American flag on the ground. IMO that is ELITISM! (see elitism defined above)
These are just a few examples off the top of my head but I am sure with a little research, a little sleep, I can find more.
It's after 1:30 am, Good Night folks!
Oh thought of one more...
When you are Obama's VP pick, Joe Biden, and you say things like "?When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn?t just talk about the princes of greed,? Biden told Couric. ?He said, ?Look, here?s what happened.??
and the Drive By, Lame Street Media gives Biden a pass even though Hoover was President when the market crashed and television service as we know it began in 1936. Thus all those "fire side chats" of the American people listening to Roosevelt on the radio!
Had Palin said that, front page news on the New York Times with subsequent articles following a week after questioning her capabilities to be VP. Heck they still bring up Dan Quayle and the spelling of "potato" that he said for the kid to add an "e" to the end.
Regarding the media's attention from a democratic gaffe to a republican gaffe, can you say...
go on...
we know you know it...
"ELITISM" yeah, that's right. Don't be affraid to say it when you know it. Just shout out the answer.
This law would force gay issues to be part of religion. It's only a matter of time before churches which choose not to perform gay marriages are sued. And as things stand now that lawsuit would probably hold up in court. So it does force gay marriage onto religion.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
* Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says ?no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.?
Nice try.
I think you need to come up with another justification for your discrimination.
Fiction: Prop 8 doesn?t discriminate against gays.
* Fact: Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people?lesbian and gay people?into our state constitution.
Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
* Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is ?false and misleading.? The Orange County Register, traditionally one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, says this claim is false. So do lawyers for the California Department of Education.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
* Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says ?no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.?
Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent?s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.
* Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don?t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won?t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.
Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco?
* Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it?s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn?t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren?t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.
Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
* Fact: California?s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.
* Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.
Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won?t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
* Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Can you elaborate and explain this elitism of which you speak?
A few more examples...
When you are the media that can be influential as how you come across to the American people, especially when running for political office and you go on shows like 'The View' you can either have an Obama experience where they gush all over you and say how sexy you are or you can have the McCain experience and be asked questions where you are interrupted before ever getting your answer out or having a ridiculous question asked like Whoopi Goldberg asking if she has to be worried about slavery. Not only stupidity but Elitism.
When you are a NY Times reporter rehashing old news in a hit piece article on the Presidential candidate's wife and you go on a teenager's Facebook page of a friend of Cindy McCain's daughter asking if that friend knows from first hand account or if she knows of anyone that can give her opinions about Cindy McCain as a person, a mother, but what about Michelle Obama? What about Obama's past and his cocaine use?? Where is the investigative journalism? Not a reprint, rehash of old news, but reporting on information in the first place! Elitism.
When you are the VP candidate, Joe Biden, and you act self-righteous when you feel your "patriotism" is being questioned. Yet Biden says it is your patriotic duty to pay more taxes. So, knowing the wasteful spending of the government, you are against tax increases, you are not patriotic?! And this coming from Joe Biden who on "his tax records between 1997 and 2008, Joe Biden has earned $2.45 million dollars in the last ten years. So how "patriotic" has Joe Biden been during these last 10 years? Try $3,690 patriotic. That means that on average he gave away $367.50 per year for the last ten years - a whopping 0.15% of his taxable income." However, he and his cronies have no disposition when it comes to telling others what they must give! Elitism!
If you need more examples, let me know. Otherwise, good night.
I want to speak up for Christianity. The church I go to welcomes LGBT members, leaders, clergy. As a straight, married man, I have learned lots about oppression for orientation from LGBT people. I encourage others to listen to experiences of LGBT people growing up and living in our culture. Don't vote on other people's rights. Cultivate respect. And bring religion back to the "beloved community" Martin Luther King talk about, inclusive of every one.
wow. you seem pretty agitated about this topic. why is it not enough to have a civil union that has the same legal rights as a married straight couple? i am asking this not as a point of counter-argument but trying to understand (understand civilly if that is possible on this heated topic). It seems like you think gay couples should have the same legal rights. I agree. It seems you do not want just legal rights but to also redefine what marriage means?? am i correct?
i do fully agree with you about cleaning marriage up. there is way too much divorce. if you know of any self-reflecting adult who comes from a divorced family, they will tell you divorce had a negative impact (usually a significant one at that) on them somehow. And the co-habitation thing...i agree. maybe that should be called a civil union??
btw...I never said kids were a prerequisite for marriage. please do not put words in my mouth.
I think you and I are agreeing more than you might think. The only divergence is the semantics of the word "marriage." Is that a fair analysis?
It wasn't meant to sound as though I was agitated, but think of it this way, if it were your civil rights that were being denied, how would you feel about this?
As far as what it's called, marriage or civil rights, here are my thoughts:
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...
As has been stated before, separate but equal is simply not.
And, has anyone thought of this? Overheard at a party, "Why no, I'm not single. I'm happily civil unioned! Thanks for asking!"
As far as cleaning up marriage, I don't think that common-law marriages should be equated with civil unions either. If you take no action to gain any legal protections, you should have none as it relates to 'marriage' benefits. Quite simple. As with all state-granted rights, such as gun ownership or driving privileges, you must apply and be accepted before they are applied to you.
And no, you didn't say anything about kids, but so many others have that I just thought I'd cover that base, too.
Now, just to really put some perspective on this and why it means so much to me, I'm going to share something very personal. I hope that people will truly give it some thoughtful consideration.
I met the man of my dreams while he was here studying for his master's degree. We dated for a long time and grew to love one another very much. He has literally become my other half and has added immeasurably to my life. There's only one problem. He is Taiwanese and when his studies were completed, he had to return to Taiwan. If we had the option of something as simple as a marriage, we could be together now and happily go about our lives together. Since we are not equal under the law, there is nothing we can do but hope that one day he can get a green card.
These are the rights and parity that we are seeking to achieve. I don't want anything special, I'm not trying to redefine marriage, I'm simply trying to be able to apply it equally to my life and my situation.
Does that make this all a bit clearer and more understandable? I hope so.
I want to speak up for Christianity. The church I go to welcomes LGBT members, leaders, clergy. As a straight, married man, I have learned lots about oppression for orientation from LGBT people. I encourage others to listen to experiences of LGBT people growing up and living in our culture. Don't vote on other people's rights. Cultivate respect. And bring religion back to the "beloved community" Martin Luther King talk about, inclusive of every one.
Does not your religion, in this case Christianity, not fulfill your spiritual needs fully? Or do you feel the need to impress it upon others who find no value in it? The beauty of the US Constitution and our Founders Deistic views simply reminds us that Society has shown, throughout the ages that when a Mind's freedom to practice any kind of religion or no religion, in their own privacy is breached by other views, under the pretense of being superior, the way, the only way, so on and so forth always sees their nations erode from within.
The one place where everyone's spiritual choices in life are most sacred and preserved are from within the confines of their own Mind's Eye. Reason becomes the Deity when one steps into the Public square. To lose Reason and replace it with Faith is to create and promote disharmony, antagonism and often violent repercusions, no matter the original intent.
Apple's products have always been popular among the gay and lesbian community, especially given that Apple has high penetration (sorry) in the design and photographic industries. I see this as a way of Apple saying thanks for their support. It's a no-brainer really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots
Damn!!!... and on a first post too - gentlemen, start your engines!
The people of California voted and passed the law stating that marriage was between one man and one women - its called democracy when the people vote. The four judges who over-ruled the will of the people are corrupt and abused their power.
Clearly you do not understand our form of government. Back to Civics class for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeagen
I have also read a number of folks saying that no one complained when companies started supporting same sex partner benefits. I worked at IBM when they started same sex partner benefits and the executives just told us we were supporting same sex partners. They didn't ask the employees to vote on the change, because if they did - it never would have passed.
Hmm, first of all, aren't the executives charged with operating the company and making those types of decisions? I don't recall voting on very many policies during my career, but i do influence them now that I'm in management.
Secondly, isn't this where your strong convictions come into play? You could've voted with your feet by walking away from this grievous change in policy and going to work for a more righteous company that supports the one and only 'true' way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeagen
The "old books", moral character and common sense are timeless. If anything, the matured 21st century has only shown that nothing is new since the beginning. The free world has become consumed with making sure "everyone is happy", "don't hurt anyone's feelings", "there is no right or wrong", "do it if it makes you feel good". The enemies of the free world will never need to fire a shot - we are destroying ourselves from within. The people of hollywood, mainstream media, liberal free thinkers, schools and colleges and most European countries are only worried about making sure everyone is happy and we can talk to everyone who disagrees.
If it's so timeless, are you following all that it says? Do you avoid eating shellfish, pork, or anything without a cloven hoof? Do you avoid your wife when she is unclean? Do you stone adulterous women to death (but give the adulterous men a free pass)?
I'm not saying that there is nothing good in the Bible, but let's be reasonable about what's meaningful today and what's not. i would hope that we've at least progressed a little beyond these admonitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeagen
I served my country and came close to losing my life; brave men/women are dying today and many have died from the past. We believe in the freedom of the PEOPLE and not the rule of the few in government, judges, United Nations, corporate executives......etc. Many who have written in this forum, mainstream media, hollywood, politicians, corporate executives would be shocked to learn how much soldiers disagree with their views. The United States has spread freedom thru-out the world with the blood and sacrifice of its soldiers and we have never worried if our enemies feelings were hurt and how happy they were. The people in hollywood, mainstream media, colleges, liberal free world thinkers and most European countries today are more concerned about being happy, not hurting anyones feelings, right and wrong is up to each individual, live for today......etc.
Thank you for your service and sacrifice. I would have served too, but I'm not allowed to as I'm out about my sexuality and would be too disruptive to the trust and cohesiveness of my unit.
I am, however, very confused by the latter part of your statement. You served because of what your government told you to do, but don't seem to believe in their rule. You fight for the freedom of the people, but not, apparently, for people like me. How contradictory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeagen
The free world has become the spoiled, uncontrollable child - "It's all about me", "there is no wrong", "I want everything now", "make me happy", "I want what they have and deserve it".....etc.
I tend to agree that we've become quite spoiled, but we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing it and indulging in it ourselves. Let's try to live just a bit more for one another and work more for one another to make things better for all of us.
When you are the media that can be influential as how you come across to the American people, especially when running for political office and you go on shows like 'The View' you can either have an Obama experience where they gush all over you and say how sexy you are or you can have the McCain experience and be asked questions where you are interrupted before ever getting your answer out or having a ridiculous question asked like Whoopi Goldberg asking if she has to be worried about slavery. Not only stupidity but Elitism.
When you are a NY Times reporter rehashing old news in a hit piece article on the Presidential candidate's wife and you go on a teenager's Facebook page of a friend of Cindy McCain's daughter asking if that friend knows from first hand account or if she knows of anyone that can give her opinions about Cindy McCain as a person, a mother, but what about Michelle Obama? What about Obama's past and his cocaine use?? Where is the investigative journalism? Not a reprint, rehash of old news, but reporting on information in the first place! Elitism.
When you are the VP candidate, Joe Biden, and you act self-righteous when you feel your "patriotism" is being questioned. Yet Biden says it is your patriotic duty to pay more taxes. So, knowing the wasteful spending of the government, you are against tax increases, you are not patriotic?! And this coming from Joe Biden who on "his tax records between 1997 and 2008, Joe Biden has earned $2.45 million dollars in the last ten years. So how "patriotic" has Joe Biden been during these last 10 years? Try $3,690 patriotic. That means that on average he gave away $367.50 per year for the last ten years - a whopping 0.15% of his taxable income." However, he and his cronies have no disposition when it comes to telling others what they must give! Elitism!
If you need more examples, let me know. Otherwise, good night.
"If you're not with us, you're against us." - George W. Bush
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti gay. ... I know from first hand evidence what its like for people to fight same sex attraction feelings and I know there are plenty who do fight and who do win.
Folks, this is a golden, precious specimen here. THIS is the explanation (and inadvertent confession) of all closeted, self-hating conservatives who cannot accept that they're gay, so they spend their entire lives fighting against gay rights. People like Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr., Jim West, Ken Mehlman, Jeff Gannon, Armstrong Williams, David Dreir, Charlie Crist, Mary Cheney, etc etc etc... It's an epidemic.
Guys like Airspeed honestly believe that being gay is a choice, because THEY THEMSELVES are gay yet have been told their entire lives that homosexuality is inherently wrong. So, they think that naturally, what they're doing is their fault, their mistake, their devil, and that they must defeat the "illness". Sadly, folks like this who remain in their extreme hard-right religious circles never get a chance to meet other gay people to understand that it's anything but a choice, let alone a disease.
I think it's amazing when these people say things like "Gay Agenda" and "keep it away from my kids" as though it's contagious. Speak for yourself. If you truly believe that gay rights poses any threat to your heterosexuality, then I'm afraid you are already gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. ) Folks, you need to visit places New York City, San Francisco, LA... It will take you less than a half hour to understand that, no, it isn't a choice. Realize it. You're living in denial.
Anyway. I wish I had time to wade through this enormous thread. For every crazy, there seems to be 3 or 4 sanes. Just wanted to say, as a happy, non-threatened heterosexual: huge kudos to Apple and Google. This is a serious issue that is absolutely akin to the Civil Rights movement and needs real attention. Wake up, folks.
The United States has spread freedom thru-out the world with the blood and sacrifice of its soldiers and we have never worried if our enemies feelings were hurt and how happy they were.
Even our founding fathers, in the construction of this country, tipped their hand to our Creator, and claimed that it was our Creator who gave us these rights.
I think you'll find that most of the founding fathers were atheists, agnostics and deists.
But regardless of that, the powerful sentiment expressed by that sentence is clear. We should be all treated as equals with universal human rights.
Black or white. Male or female. Gay or straight.
It may have tipped a hat to a notional creator, but that one sentence cut through the bigotry and discrimination that were at the core of most religions.
It paved the way for the abolition of slavery and for equal rights for women. Both of which were fiercely opposed by conservative religious forces.
the physical constructs that make up the psychie are mostly decided prior to birth.
Is this true? Can we determine if a person will be intelligent, positive, religious, shy, emotional? The brain is the control center for everything and can undergo a great number of changes through development and via sensory input. A child simply cannot be defined at birth. I would accept there are building blocks but not ones that have a predetermined path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipism
But I disagree with that practice [of polygamy] in society as I feel it treads on civil rights of women.
Women would be able to marry more than one man btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipism
Personally, I'd rather get rid of the whole idea of a legal union altogeter. If you want to do it under your God, so be it; if you want to get benefits from work or Gov't then prove that you have lived together for x-many years.
I would be inclined to agree. I think a marriage ceremony is farcical and a relationship should be defined by the living out of a vow and not the making of one in the same light as keeping a promise not making a promise defines a person's reliability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
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 ;-)
Try your least favorite ice-cream flavor for a week and tell me if you like it. I doubt you'd say that ice-cream preference is set at birth.
Sexuality for some is well-defined, not so for others. People can be confused about their sexuality their whole life and will admit as much. If sexuality is always well-defined and therefore not a choice, this could never be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
And they (me) realize that kids grow up to be who and what they are irrespective of their parents' guidance.
Sure but I would say given that a child spends near half their youth in school and a significant portion in front of the TV that there are still a number of external influences that are very hard to quantify but certainly exist - they may also rebel against your influence, which is still having an influence. You may observe that your kids dress as goths and say 'well I never taught them that' but they didn't adopt it on their own either.
I used to wear dresses and pink clothes as a kid too and I used to look up girls' skirts. Children learn by experimentation and make choices based on comfort. Some would say that the reactionary elements to the experiments is what is defined at birth and this may be the case but it's in no way a certainty. I think that the conditioning of comfort levels varies based on importance. You can change dress styles in a makeover show but sexuality that is defined by 20+ years of experimentation and quite fundamental to an adult way of life is vastly more difficult to change but doesn't preclude change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeagen
The free world has become the spoiled, uncontrollable child - "It's all about me", "there is no wrong", "I want everything now", "make me happy", "I want what they have and deserve it".....etc.
I think the word free needs quotes round it. When a small minority overrules the majority then freedom is certainly questionable.
"Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here's American Gladiators, watch this, shut up. Here is 56 channels of it. Watch these picture-weary retards bang their f* skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here America, you are free to do as we tell you."
Humor aside, there are times when an unjustly oppressive majority *must* be overruled to protect freedom so long as the decision is made for the greater good. The trouble is that if a minority can do this for issues that clearly needed sorting out like racial barriers, where are the limits on what they can do when it's not so clear?
A democratic government with this level of control is simply an elected dictatorship, which I'm not sure differs all that much from a dictatorship other than there tends to be nicer people in power.
Neither a majority vote nor minority rule are ideal but history would show that the minority rule is generally the lesser of two evils.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StudioVoxPop
Those people who argue about "activist judges" and that gay marriage doesn't fit the "traditional" definition of marriage and that gay marriage will ruin the institution are using the same exact arguments racists used to justify keeping bans on interracial marriages.
It's not quite the same. I don't think a husband has ever come home to his wife and said 'honey, I think I'm Chinese'. Racism is different from sexuality. I agree there should be no unjust prejudice made either way but it's not the same thing. There are valid arguments against same-sex marriage as there are against polygamy. Do same-sex couples say that polygamy is wrong? Are they being prejudiced? Who makes the decisions?
What if all consensual relationships had legal implications. We could get a woman with 5 husbands and 3 of those husbands are married to each other. If they are all happy (pursuit of happiness discussion) with this arrangement then why be prejudiced against them? People would talk about child rearing but then others would say, I'm a mother and I could have used an extra 4 pairs of hands to do the chores.
People can see where complications will arise here but does that mean no one should legally be allowed to do it? If they all have an equal part in the relationship then they deserve equal legal recognition but with only single partner union laws, some will be discriminated against.
With homosexual couples who construct a family unit, there will always without question be a 3rd person in the relationship, which people would say produces a complication. Children seeking out their genetic parents is a natural event and occurs quite frequently but may be prevented by law with same-sex relationships. If same-sex marriage has this implication then it affects the rights of the children to know their genetic heritage.
I would suggest this could imply that a basic human right to know who your ancestors are conflicts with the rights a couple who choose to become your peers wants. I'm not saying that this only happens with same-sex couples but it will be a more frequent occurrence. Similarly polygamy won't always be complicated but it's more likely to be.
Consider the situation where two women decide to create a child by using a male donor. This child is born and grows up to ask who his father is. The two women forbid this and legally they are the parents on equal standing as a heterosexual couple. Who has had their rights taken away? Again, this applies to other situations too, not just same-sex couples but it is an issue that needs to be considered because as I say same-sex family units must *always* involve a 3rd party.
This being the case, their union does differ from heterosexual couples as it requires 3 people to produce a family. Heterosexual couples can also require this but because of a flaw in their ability to reproduce. Same-sex couple do not have a flaw - they just were not built to conceive together.
This does not affect their right to be together but it can have implications for the definition of their union if child rearing is to be taken into consideration, which it most often is.
Comments
first of all, this is a civil issue (one that, on this forum, should concern only how it might affect apple ... i might take the long way, but i'll get to that). despite the inspiration many of the framers took from religion, many others were decidedly nonreligious. they agreed, however, on the separation of church and state. as such, the views of religious institutions should not impact domestic policy. so if you disagree on religious grounds, that's perfectly fine, but don't use it as the basis for wanting a DOMA on a state or federal level. you need to prove that gay marriage would be unconstitutional.
and speaking of unconstitutional things, judges are not required or expected to obey the will of the people ... they are tasked with weighing the laws against the constitution. so by "legislating from the bench," they are simply doing the job we've given them (in an ideal world ... it would be naive to assume none let personal opinion to slip in). they strike down or uphold laws according to their constitutional duties.
the fallacy with asking why pro-gay marriage groups are pushing this (since many rights are already afforded them) is that it goes back to "separate-but-equal."
surprise, it's not all that equal.
to summarize this increasingly lengthy post, apple is simply going with what's best for the company, while staying true to their beliefs. they reside in a left-leaning state with a more active homosexual community, public policy seems to be drifting in the direction of either marriage or civil unions for homosexual companies (and they can appear to be forward-thinking), and they can keep a large part of their work force proud of the company they work for. they might lose a few shareholders, customers or employees as a result, but the long-term benefits far outweigh those losses.
oh, and on a personal note, if i see the phrases "nancy boy" or "fruit" again, i might blow a gasket. i'm a straight man, but something about that whole "all men are created equal" just stuck with me.
maybe it's just me.
It's not just you. I cannot tolerate the whole "sub-human" designation given to other people based on their race, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, etc...
And there is 'one more thing'... Apple under Jobs has been an activist company. Their stance on increasing the recyclability and eliminating toxins in Apple products costs them more, but they know their customers (largely a family and youth-oriented group) appreciate the effort.
Finally, no silence here... I'm voting for Governor Palin! Senator McCain, can come along for the ride. Although we will have to wait until Nov. 4th for the ultimate conclusion, if she wins, it will be the ultimate poke in the eye to every leftist elitist
Can you elaborate and explain this elitism of which you speak?
I firmly support putting this measure on the ballot because it's a complete and total sham that appointed judges can over rule the will of the people in a democracy. The only power the people have over the judges is an amendment and we're going to continue to see this as people realize that passing laws doesn't mean a d@mn thing when some judge decides that his/her interpretation of the law says it's illegal.
I still think if judges are going to overturn a law they should need the same 2/3 majority that congress needs to overrule a presidential veto...
EDIT: The idea of checks and balances is, at this point, nothing more than idea and should BO win and the Democrats get the magic 60 in the Senate you can say goodbye to any attempt of catering to the minority. And by minority I mean republicans - crazy huh? I wonder if saying you're a republican will get you a scholarship when going to college...
Marriage used to only be between two people of the same race. For 98 years that was the law in California until the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT declared the law unconstitutional in 1948 (Perez v. Sharp). The US SUPREME COURT overturned all other state laws banning interracial marriage in 1967 (Lovings v. Virginia). Those people who argue about "activist judges" and that gay marriage doesn't fit the "traditional" definition of marriage and that gay marriage will ruin the institution are using the same exact arguments racists used to justify keeping bans on interracial marriages. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Vote No on Prop 8.
Can you elaborate and explain this elitism of which you speak?
None are more blind, then those who will not see! Okay, I'll elaborate a little more.
If you're Hollywood ie. Matt Damon and can say Palin for VP is like a bad Disney movie, knowing, that even though you have no other outstanding credentials other that being a famous movie star, your opinion will be picked up by both the media news and to shows like Extra, etc. and be given validation.
If you're Hollywood ie. Demi Moore / Ashton Kutcher and can be at a university symposium and voice your opposition to policies even though you have no other outstanding credentials other that being a famous movie star, and your opinion will be picked up by the media news and be given validation.
BUT if you're "Joe the Plumber" where only by fate do you find a bunch of news cameras in your face and that one reply, to a simple question can bring the wrath of the media elite doing more vetting of you, Joe the plumber, then for Barry the politician, yeah, I think that is ELITISM! (see elitism defined below)
Elite - defined - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitist)
How about if your the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers being confront by a Fox News reporter and for once in your life your at a loss for words and have to call the police to escort you from your home to your car so no more embarrassing questions, that you gave no answers to in the first place, will be brought upon you. Bill Ayers the domestic terrorist is now depending upon the very organization (the police) who were his targets he tried to destroy when he bombed the NYPD! I bet he probably needed to get to his car to arrive on time to a University symposium or a magazine interview where he could pronounce his anarchist ways and that he wasn't sorry for bombing the NYPD Police Headquarters or a photo shoot where he can step on the American flag on the ground. IMO that is ELITISM! (see elitism defined above)
These are just a few examples off the top of my head but I am sure with a little research, a little sleep, I can find more.
It's after 1:30 am, Good Night folks!
Oh thought of one more...
When you are Obama's VP pick, Joe Biden, and you say things like "?When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn?t just talk about the princes of greed,? Biden told Couric. ?He said, ?Look, here?s what happened.??
and the Drive By, Lame Street Media gives Biden a pass even though Hoover was President when the market crashed and television service as we know it began in 1936. Thus all those "fire side chats" of the American people listening to Roosevelt on the radio!
Had Palin said that, front page news on the New York Times with subsequent articles following a week after questioning her capabilities to be VP. Heck they still bring up Dan Quayle and the spelling of "potato" that he said for the kid to add an "e" to the end.
Regarding the media's attention from a democratic gaffe to a republican gaffe, can you say...
go on...
we know you know it...
"ELITISM" yeah, that's right. Don't be affraid to say it when you know it. Just shout out the answer.
This law would force gay issues to be part of religion. It's only a matter of time before churches which choose not to perform gay marriages are sued. And as things stand now that lawsuit would probably hold up in court. So it does force gay marriage onto religion.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
* Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says ?no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.?
Nice try.
I think you need to come up with another justification for your discrimination.
http://www.noonprop8.com
Fiction: Prop 8 doesn?t discriminate against gays.
* Fact: Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people?lesbian and gay people?into our state constitution.
Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
* Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is ?false and misleading.? The Orange County Register, traditionally one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, says this claim is false. So do lawyers for the California Department of Education.
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
* Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says ?no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.?
Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent?s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.
* Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don?t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won?t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.
Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco?
* Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it?s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn?t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren?t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.
Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
* Fact: California?s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.
* Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.
Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won?t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
* Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
http://www.noonprop8.com
Can you elaborate and explain this elitism of which you speak?
A few more examples...
When you are the media that can be influential as how you come across to the American people, especially when running for political office and you go on shows like 'The View' you can either have an Obama experience where they gush all over you and say how sexy you are or you can have the McCain experience and be asked questions where you are interrupted before ever getting your answer out or having a ridiculous question asked like Whoopi Goldberg asking if she has to be worried about slavery. Not only stupidity but Elitism.
When you are a NY Times reporter rehashing old news in a hit piece article on the Presidential candidate's wife and you go on a teenager's Facebook page of a friend of Cindy McCain's daughter asking if that friend knows from first hand account or if she knows of anyone that can give her opinions about Cindy McCain as a person, a mother, but what about Michelle Obama? What about Obama's past and his cocaine use?? Where is the investigative journalism? Not a reprint, rehash of old news, but reporting on information in the first place! Elitism.
When you are the VP candidate, Joe Biden, and you act self-righteous when you feel your "patriotism" is being questioned. Yet Biden says it is your patriotic duty to pay more taxes. So, knowing the wasteful spending of the government, you are against tax increases, you are not patriotic?! And this coming from Joe Biden who on "his tax records between 1997 and 2008, Joe Biden has earned $2.45 million dollars in the last ten years. So how "patriotic" has Joe Biden been during these last 10 years? Try $3,690 patriotic. That means that on average he gave away $367.50 per year for the last ten years - a whopping 0.15% of his taxable income." However, he and his cronies have no disposition when it comes to telling others what they must give! Elitism!
If you need more examples, let me know. Otherwise, good night.
wow. you seem pretty agitated about this topic.
i do fully agree with you about cleaning marriage up. there is way too much divorce. if you know of any self-reflecting adult who comes from a divorced family, they will tell you divorce had a negative impact (usually a significant one at that) on them somehow. And the co-habitation thing...i agree. maybe that should be called a civil union??
btw...I never said kids were a prerequisite for marriage. please do not put words in my mouth.
I think you and I are agreeing more than you might think. The only divergence is the semantics of the word "marriage." Is that a fair analysis?
It wasn't meant to sound as though I was agitated, but think of it this way, if it were your civil rights that were being denied, how would you feel about this?
As far as what it's called, marriage or civil rights, here are my thoughts:
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...
As has been stated before, separate but equal is simply not.
And, has anyone thought of this? Overheard at a party, "Why no, I'm not single. I'm happily civil unioned! Thanks for asking!"
As far as cleaning up marriage, I don't think that common-law marriages should be equated with civil unions either. If you take no action to gain any legal protections, you should have none as it relates to 'marriage' benefits. Quite simple. As with all state-granted rights, such as gun ownership or driving privileges, you must apply and be accepted before they are applied to you.
And no, you didn't say anything about kids, but so many others have that I just thought I'd cover that base, too.
Now, just to really put some perspective on this and why it means so much to me, I'm going to share something very personal. I hope that people will truly give it some thoughtful consideration.
I met the man of my dreams while he was here studying for his master's degree. We dated for a long time and grew to love one another very much. He has literally become my other half and has added immeasurably to my life. There's only one problem. He is Taiwanese and when his studies were completed, he had to return to Taiwan. If we had the option of something as simple as a marriage, we could be together now and happily go about our lives together. Since we are not equal under the law, there is nothing we can do but hope that one day he can get a green card.
These are the rights and parity that we are seeking to achieve. I don't want anything special, I'm not trying to redefine marriage, I'm simply trying to be able to apply it equally to my life and my situation.
Does that make this all a bit clearer and more understandable? I hope so.
I want to speak up for Christianity. The church I go to welcomes LGBT members, leaders, clergy. As a straight, married man, I have learned lots about oppression for orientation from LGBT people. I encourage others to listen to experiences of LGBT people growing up and living in our culture. Don't vote on other people's rights. Cultivate respect. And bring religion back to the "beloved community" Martin Luther King talk about, inclusive of every one.
Does not your religion, in this case Christianity, not fulfill your spiritual needs fully? Or do you feel the need to impress it upon others who find no value in it? The beauty of the US Constitution and our Founders Deistic views simply reminds us that Society has shown, throughout the ages that when a Mind's freedom to practice any kind of religion or no religion, in their own privacy is breached by other views, under the pretense of being superior, the way, the only way, so on and so forth always sees their nations erode from within.
The one place where everyone's spiritual choices in life are most sacred and preserved are from within the confines of their own Mind's Eye. Reason becomes the Deity when one steps into the Public square. To lose Reason and replace it with Faith is to create and promote disharmony, antagonism and often violent repercusions, no matter the original intent.
Damn!!!... and on a first post too - gentlemen, start your engines!
"Shear stupidity" = 'running with scissors'.
I think 'sheer stupidity' is what you meant.
Speaking of sheer stupidity, anyone who can't see that 'Tab A' was designed to go into 'Slot B'.......well.......
What if God made Tab A to only feel comfortable with another Tab A?
The people of California voted and passed the law stating that marriage was between one man and one women - its called democracy when the people vote. The four judges who over-ruled the will of the people are corrupt and abused their power.
Clearly you do not understand our form of government. Back to Civics class for you!
I have also read a number of folks saying that no one complained when companies started supporting same sex partner benefits. I worked at IBM when they started same sex partner benefits and the executives just told us we were supporting same sex partners. They didn't ask the employees to vote on the change, because if they did - it never would have passed.
Hmm, first of all, aren't the executives charged with operating the company and making those types of decisions? I don't recall voting on very many policies during my career, but i do influence them now that I'm in management.
Secondly, isn't this where your strong convictions come into play? You could've voted with your feet by walking away from this grievous change in policy and going to work for a more righteous company that supports the one and only 'true' way.
The "old books", moral character and common sense are timeless. If anything, the matured 21st century has only shown that nothing is new since the beginning. The free world has become consumed with making sure "everyone is happy", "don't hurt anyone's feelings", "there is no right or wrong", "do it if it makes you feel good". The enemies of the free world will never need to fire a shot - we are destroying ourselves from within. The people of hollywood, mainstream media, liberal free thinkers, schools and colleges and most European countries are only worried about making sure everyone is happy and we can talk to everyone who disagrees.
If it's so timeless, are you following all that it says? Do you avoid eating shellfish, pork, or anything without a cloven hoof? Do you avoid your wife when she is unclean? Do you stone adulterous women to death (but give the adulterous men a free pass)?
I'm not saying that there is nothing good in the Bible, but let's be reasonable about what's meaningful today and what's not. i would hope that we've at least progressed a little beyond these admonitions.
I served my country and came close to losing my life; brave men/women are dying today and many have died from the past. We believe in the freedom of the PEOPLE and not the rule of the few in government, judges, United Nations, corporate executives......etc. Many who have written in this forum, mainstream media, hollywood, politicians, corporate executives would be shocked to learn how much soldiers disagree with their views. The United States has spread freedom thru-out the world with the blood and sacrifice of its soldiers and we have never worried if our enemies feelings were hurt and how happy they were. The people in hollywood, mainstream media, colleges, liberal free world thinkers and most European countries today are more concerned about being happy, not hurting anyones feelings, right and wrong is up to each individual, live for today......etc.
Thank you for your service and sacrifice. I would have served too, but I'm not allowed to as I'm out about my sexuality and would be too disruptive to the trust and cohesiveness of my unit.
I am, however, very confused by the latter part of your statement. You served because of what your government told you to do, but don't seem to believe in their rule. You fight for the freedom of the people, but not, apparently, for people like me. How contradictory.
The free world has become the spoiled, uncontrollable child - "It's all about me", "there is no wrong", "I want everything now", "make me happy", "I want what they have and deserve it".....etc.
I tend to agree that we've become quite spoiled, but we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing it and indulging in it ourselves. Let's try to live just a bit more for one another and work more for one another to make things better for all of us.
A few more examples...
When you are the media that can be influential as how you come across to the American people, especially when running for political office and you go on shows like 'The View' you can either have an Obama experience where they gush all over you and say how sexy you are or you can have the McCain experience and be asked questions where you are interrupted before ever getting your answer out or having a ridiculous question asked like Whoopi Goldberg asking if she has to be worried about slavery. Not only stupidity but Elitism.
When you are a NY Times reporter rehashing old news in a hit piece article on the Presidential candidate's wife and you go on a teenager's Facebook page of a friend of Cindy McCain's daughter asking if that friend knows from first hand account or if she knows of anyone that can give her opinions about Cindy McCain as a person, a mother, but what about Michelle Obama? What about Obama's past and his cocaine use?? Where is the investigative journalism? Not a reprint, rehash of old news, but reporting on information in the first place! Elitism.
When you are the VP candidate, Joe Biden, and you act self-righteous when you feel your "patriotism" is being questioned. Yet Biden says it is your patriotic duty to pay more taxes. So, knowing the wasteful spending of the government, you are against tax increases, you are not patriotic?! And this coming from Joe Biden who on "his tax records between 1997 and 2008, Joe Biden has earned $2.45 million dollars in the last ten years. So how "patriotic" has Joe Biden been during these last 10 years? Try $3,690 patriotic. That means that on average he gave away $367.50 per year for the last ten years - a whopping 0.15% of his taxable income." However, he and his cronies have no disposition when it comes to telling others what they must give! Elitism!
If you need more examples, let me know. Otherwise, good night.
"If you're not with us, you're against us." - George W. Bush
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti gay. ... I know from first hand evidence what its like for people to fight same sex attraction feelings and I know there are plenty who do fight and who do win.
Folks, this is a golden, precious specimen here. THIS is the explanation (and inadvertent confession) of all closeted, self-hating conservatives who cannot accept that they're gay, so they spend their entire lives fighting against gay rights. People like Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr., Jim West, Ken Mehlman, Jeff Gannon, Armstrong Williams, David Dreir, Charlie Crist, Mary Cheney, etc etc etc... It's an epidemic.
Guys like Airspeed honestly believe that being gay is a choice, because THEY THEMSELVES are gay yet have been told their entire lives that homosexuality is inherently wrong. So, they think that naturally, what they're doing is their fault, their mistake, their devil, and that they must defeat the "illness". Sadly, folks like this who remain in their extreme hard-right religious circles never get a chance to meet other gay people to understand that it's anything but a choice, let alone a disease.
I think it's amazing when these people say things like "Gay Agenda" and "keep it away from my kids" as though it's contagious. Speak for yourself. If you truly believe that gay rights poses any threat to your heterosexuality, then I'm afraid you are already gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Anyway. I wish I had time to wade through this enormous thread. For every crazy, there seems to be 3 or 4 sanes. Just wanted to say, as a happy, non-threatened heterosexual: huge kudos to Apple and Google. This is a serious issue that is absolutely akin to the Civil Rights movement and needs real attention. Wake up, folks.
The United States has spread freedom thru-out the world with the blood and sacrifice of its soldiers and we have never worried if our enemies feelings were hurt and how happy they were.
The epitome of American ignorance and arrogance.
Even our founding fathers, in the construction of this country, tipped their hand to our Creator, and claimed that it was our Creator who gave us these rights.
I think you'll find that most of the founding fathers were atheists, agnostics and deists.
But regardless of that, the powerful sentiment expressed by that sentence is clear. We should be all treated as equals with universal human rights.
Black or white. Male or female. Gay or straight.
It may have tipped a hat to a notional creator, but that one sentence cut through the bigotry and discrimination that were at the core of most religions.
It paved the way for the abolition of slavery and for equal rights for women. Both of which were fiercely opposed by conservative religious forces.
C.
the physical constructs that make up the psychie are mostly decided prior to birth.
Is this true? Can we determine if a person will be intelligent, positive, religious, shy, emotional? The brain is the control center for everything and can undergo a great number of changes through development and via sensory input. A child simply cannot be defined at birth. I would accept there are building blocks but not ones that have a predetermined path.
But I disagree with that practice [of polygamy] in society as I feel it treads on civil rights of women.
Women would be able to marry more than one man btw.
Personally, I'd rather get rid of the whole idea of a legal union altogeter. If you want to do it under your God, so be it; if you want to get benefits from work or Gov't then prove that you have lived together for x-many years.
I would be inclined to agree. I think a marriage ceremony is farcical and a relationship should be defined by the living out of a vow and not the making of one in the same light as keeping a promise not making a promise defines a person's reliability.
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 ;-)
Try your least favorite ice-cream flavor for a week and tell me if you like it. I doubt you'd say that ice-cream preference is set at birth.
Sexuality for some is well-defined, not so for others. People can be confused about their sexuality their whole life and will admit as much. If sexuality is always well-defined and therefore not a choice, this could never be the case.
And they (me) realize that kids grow up to be who and what they are irrespective of their parents' guidance.
Sure but I would say given that a child spends near half their youth in school and a significant portion in front of the TV that there are still a number of external influences that are very hard to quantify but certainly exist - they may also rebel against your influence, which is still having an influence. You may observe that your kids dress as goths and say 'well I never taught them that' but they didn't adopt it on their own either.
I used to wear dresses and pink clothes as a kid too and I used to look up girls' skirts. Children learn by experimentation and make choices based on comfort. Some would say that the reactionary elements to the experiments is what is defined at birth and this may be the case but it's in no way a certainty. I think that the conditioning of comfort levels varies based on importance. You can change dress styles in a makeover show but sexuality that is defined by 20+ years of experimentation and quite fundamental to an adult way of life is vastly more difficult to change but doesn't preclude change.
The free world has become the spoiled, uncontrollable child - "It's all about me", "there is no wrong", "I want everything now", "make me happy", "I want what they have and deserve it".....etc.
I think the word free needs quotes round it. When a small minority overrules the majority then freedom is certainly questionable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqs9ap3iV-4
"Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here's American Gladiators, watch this, shut up. Here is 56 channels of it. Watch these picture-weary retards bang their f* skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here America, you are free to do as we tell you."
Humor aside, there are times when an unjustly oppressive majority *must* be overruled to protect freedom so long as the decision is made for the greater good. The trouble is that if a minority can do this for issues that clearly needed sorting out like racial barriers, where are the limits on what they can do when it's not so clear?
A democratic government with this level of control is simply an elected dictatorship, which I'm not sure differs all that much from a dictatorship other than there tends to be nicer people in power.
Neither a majority vote nor minority rule are ideal but history would show that the minority rule is generally the lesser of two evils.
Those people who argue about "activist judges" and that gay marriage doesn't fit the "traditional" definition of marriage and that gay marriage will ruin the institution are using the same exact arguments racists used to justify keeping bans on interracial marriages.
It's not quite the same. I don't think a husband has ever come home to his wife and said 'honey, I think I'm Chinese'. Racism is different from sexuality. I agree there should be no unjust prejudice made either way but it's not the same thing. There are valid arguments against same-sex marriage as there are against polygamy. Do same-sex couples say that polygamy is wrong? Are they being prejudiced? Who makes the decisions?
What if all consensual relationships had legal implications. We could get a woman with 5 husbands and 3 of those husbands are married to each other. If they are all happy (pursuit of happiness discussion) with this arrangement then why be prejudiced against them? People would talk about child rearing but then others would say, I'm a mother and I could have used an extra 4 pairs of hands to do the chores.
People can see where complications will arise here but does that mean no one should legally be allowed to do it? If they all have an equal part in the relationship then they deserve equal legal recognition but with only single partner union laws, some will be discriminated against.
With homosexual couples who construct a family unit, there will always without question be a 3rd person in the relationship, which people would say produces a complication. Children seeking out their genetic parents is a natural event and occurs quite frequently but may be prevented by law with same-sex relationships. If same-sex marriage has this implication then it affects the rights of the children to know their genetic heritage.
I would suggest this could imply that a basic human right to know who your ancestors are conflicts with the rights a couple who choose to become your peers wants. I'm not saying that this only happens with same-sex couples but it will be a more frequent occurrence. Similarly polygamy won't always be complicated but it's more likely to be.
Consider the situation where two women decide to create a child by using a male donor. This child is born and grows up to ask who his father is. The two women forbid this and legally they are the parents on equal standing as a heterosexual couple. Who has had their rights taken away? Again, this applies to other situations too, not just same-sex couples but it is an issue that needs to be considered because as I say same-sex family units must *always* involve a 3rd party.
This being the case, their union does differ from heterosexual couples as it requires 3 people to produce a family. Heterosexual couples can also require this but because of a flaw in their ability to reproduce. Same-sex couple do not have a flaw - they just were not built to conceive together.
This does not affect their right to be together but it can have implications for the definition of their union if child rearing is to be taken into consideration, which it most often is.