Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle

1262729313268

Comments

  • Reply 561 of 1351
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    We used to have slavery here too, but it's also been abolished, and plays no role in modern society.



    "We used to have slavery here too, but it's also been abolished, yet racism still exists in modern society."



    "We used to have no suffrage for women here too, but it's also been abolished, yet sexism still remains in modern society."



    As I stated, essentially stating, "Since you have now told us it's illegal and wrong for the umpteenth time and you are shown your force of will on this matte, we, all-of-a -sudden don't feel that way anymore about polygamy." doesn't fly with me. A public agreement to abolish something doesn't change the fundamental basics of a religion. Culture and viewpoints do change, but it's a gradual process that takes generations, just like there are plenty of racists and sexists in America who are that way because of how they were raised.
  • Reply 562 of 1351
    londorlondor Posts: 258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    I object to the use of shareholder's money for this purpose. Next!



    Easy, if you do not like it then sell your shares. I will get them.
  • Reply 563 of 1351
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    Here, there will be no marriages between the same gender, period.



    The last article of the Constitution ends in a period, too, yet it has been amended 27 times. Or does the repelling of the Prohibition of Alcohol count as the 28th time.
  • Reply 564 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    "We used to have slavery here too, but it's also been abolished, yet racism still exists in modern society."



    "We used to have no suffrage for women here too, but it's also been abolished, yet sexism still remains in modern society."



    As I stated, essentially stating, "Since you have now told us it's illegal and wrong for the umpteenth time and you are shown your force of will on this matte, we, all-of-a -sudden don't feel that way anymore about polygamy." doesn't fly with me. A public agreement to abolish something doesn't change the fundamental basics of a religion. Culture and viewpoints do change, but it's a gradual process that takes generations, just like there are plenty of racists and sexists in America who are that way because of how they were raised.



    Let me say right off that I do not support polygamy. But, your comments omit the reason that those Mormans practiced polygamy to begin with. For them it was a matter of survival, as the ratio of men to women was quite lopsided, and adding to the gene pool was not an option.



    Today, as I said we have a large Morman contingent here in Arizona, and in fact I know quite a few of them. What I don't know is even one of them that has anything positive to say about polygamy as a way of life today. They're just like you and I, and most other people. Not that I expect the anti-Morman rhetoric to stop on account of anything that I say. It's right up there with anti-semitism, alive and well in all of the best circles of ignorance.
  • Reply 565 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Londor View Post


    Easy, if you do not like it then sell your shares. I will get them.



    Shares come with votes.
  • Reply 566 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joeyslaptop View Post


    Proposition 8 is...about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family



    Correct!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joeyslaptop View Post


    - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.



    Incorrect!





    Next...
  • Reply 567 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The last article of the Constitution ends in a period, too, yet it has been amended 27 times. Or does the repelling of the Prohibition of Alcohol count as the 28th time.



    Quite so, and ours is about to be so amended. The majority will vote for the amendment, and the rest can get over it. At that point, there will be no gay marriage WITHOUT further amendment, period. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an amendment here to undo the one that we're about to add to our constitution.
  • Reply 568 of 1351
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    What I don't know is even one of them that has anything positive to say about polygamy as a way of life today. They're just like you and I, and most other people. Not that I expect the anti-Morman rhetoric to stop on account of anything that I say. It's right up there with anti-semitism, alive and well in all of the best circles of ignorance.



    I think everyone is like me, but obviously we don't all have the same viewpoint. That would be quite dull. I'm glad to hear that the people you know don't have anything to say about it, and I've mentioned the biological logic behind it a few times in this thread, but I find that religious change is slow on the uptake. But as you stated, the numbers are no longer an issue as the church has 13M members according to Wikipedia (there is citation but no outside link for verification).



    I do see your point about anti-Mormonism and will refrain from making any further comments on the matter as I do agree that many of comments are based on the previous practices.



    BTW, this has been a fun argument!
  • Reply 569 of 1351
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an amendment here to undo the one that we're about to add to our constitution.



    We'll see! We're about to have a black, Muslim, terrorist, liberal Democratic president.... or some say. That is change i can believe in.



    PS: I personally don't ever foresee myself get married, and I don't want the government involved with marriage at any level. I say keep it within your religion. But, I do feel that homosexual couples should have the right to make the same miserable mistake as most heterosexual couples.
  • Reply 570 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    I meant that the minority, gays in this case, are trying to force their views on the majority. Sorry if I was too cryptic.



    This, too, is an incorrect statement. No one is trying to force anything on you. The right for a gay couple to marry has nothing to do with you unless you're invited to the wedding. Your rights (assuming you're heterosexual) are not impinged in any way, shape or form.



    Unless by "forcing their views on the majority" you're suggesting that someone else's view that they are equal to you is being forced on you when they are recognized as an equal. But, in that case, your statement says more about you than it does them.



    Peace.

    Lee
  • Reply 571 of 1351
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by smack416 View Post


    This, too, is an incorrect statement. No one is trying to force anything on you. The right for a gay couple to marry has nothing to do with you unless you're invited to the wedding. Your rights (assuming you're heterosexual) are not impinged in any way, shape or form.



    Unless by "forcing their views on the majority" you're suggesting that someone else's view that they are equal to you is being forced on you when they are recognized as an equal. But, in that case, your statement says more about you than it does them.



    Peace.

    Lee



    Well said.
  • Reply 572 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I think everyone is like me, but obviously we don't all have the same viewpoint. That would be quite dull. I'm glad to hear that the people you know don't have anything to say about it, and I've mentioned the biological logic behind it a few times in this thread, but I find that religious change is slow on the uptake. But as you stated, the numbers are no longer an issue as the church has 13M members according to Wikipedia (there is citation but no outside link for verification).



    I do see your point about anti-Mormonism and will refrain from making any further comments on the matter as I do agree that many of comments are based on the previous practices.



    BTW, this has been a fun argument!



    You're not going to offend me, post away! Only fools put me off, and they're easily put into the ignore category.



    The fact that the membership roles of the Mormon church are at the level that they are is a sore point with me. They regularly baptize the dead, and then add them to the rolls of membership in the church. Their contention is that the dead are free to deny any such affiliation. Right! We needn't go into that idea any further to see that it's sorely lacking, not to mention self serving.



    Sorry, but I put no stock in Wikipedia, as it's far to easily edited by those with an ax to grind. I'm sure that some items there are correct, but not all, thus they are unreliable as a resource.



    It's not only religions that are slow to evolve, have you ever been to Missouri? They don't call it "the show me state" without good reason. The majority once believed the Earth to be flat, and let's not forget The inquisition. Today, we know better, we have evolved, except for Missouri, but trust me, anti-Momonism is not a figment of my imagination. It was openly discussed when Mitt Romney was running for the Republican nomination, and it's just a fact that his Mormonism would have cost the party votes had he gotten the nomination.



    It has been a great discussion!
  • Reply 573 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    We'll see! We're about to have a black, Muslim, terrorist, liberal Democratic president.... or some say. That is change i can believe in.



    PS: I personally don't ever foresee myself get married, and I don't want the government involved with marriage at any level. I say keep it within your religion. But, I do feel that homosexual couples should have the right to make the same miserable mistake as most heterosexual couples.



    My ballot has already been sent it, and you take it to the bank that I did not vote for that candidate, nor will I ever support liberals.
  • Reply 574 of 1351
    I have read nearly every post on this board. I've been at turns entertained, impressed and horrified by the passion, insight, intelligence and intolerance (on both sides) in the debate.



    And for the life of me, I cannot figure out what the brouhaha is all about.



    I am not gay and I do not live in California. My interest in Prop 8 is almost entirely academic. I had a religious upbringing (Jewish) and am schooled, formally and informally, in both the Old and New Testaments (I hung out at a Newman House in college and attended a Pentacostal church with my wife). I am also a rabid student of American history.



    And forgive me in advance if I misrepresent some of the views presented here.



    But if I understand the Prop 8 issue correctly, all this pro/con rhetoric is directed at a word ? marriage.



    Homosexuality is not illegal. Being in a same-sex relationship is not illegal. The law recognizes no distinctions based on the sexual orientation of an individual and places no restrictions on the rights of homosexuals (as it does for, say, convicted felons). As far as this issue is concerned, I've read in several places that even if Prop 8 passes, same-sex couples in California already enjoy all the same legal benefits and protections as heterosexual couples.



    So it seems to me that what Prop 8 does is simply give same-sex couples the right to call themselves "married." What am I missing here?



    And if I'm right, shouldn't all this vitriol should be directed at Noah Webster, not your fellow citizens?



    With all due respect to those on both sides, who cares what you call this legal relationship? Two non-blood related people in love want to live in a committed partnership slash relationship that is legally recognized by the state of California with all rights attached thereto. Some folks want to call this arrangement "marriage." Other folks want to call it "civil union." Californians already call it "domestic partnership."



    I have an idea. Instead of spending tens of millions of dollars on ads to enrich TV stations and save a lot of people from hatin' on each other, just call this relationship between two non-blood related loving people, whomever they are, loveship. Companiage. Spouseness. Arthur. Insane.



    But even if I've missed something (I have read that marriage as a legal definition grants federal-level rights that cannot be granted by states, but I'm not sure how federal marriage rights limit those in a state-approved "domestic partnership"), how about a proposition that bans state and federal governments from using the word "marriage" to define a legal partnership of two people? That would leave "marriage" simply as a religious or personal choice and completely eliminate the divisive moral and lexicographal issue from our jurisprudence.



    An ironic personal story: my wife and I did not want to get married. We didn't like the idea of the government defining our relationship. But I'm self-employed sans health insurance. My wife works for a large company and could put me on her company health insurance policy. New York State does not have same-sex marriage, but her company recognizes domestic partners for insurance coverage purposes. To avoid getting married just to get insurance, she tried to get me coverage as her domestic partner. But the company defined domestic partners as same-sex couples. So we, a heterosexual couple, had to get married to gain the same rights as a same-sex couple who can't get married.



    Life is funny.
  • Reply 575 of 1351
    I'm almost ashamed to claim the title "Christian" after reading all the insane drivel in this thread. I'm sorry for the impressions so many of you have had confirmed—we're not all like that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macvault View Post


    This country is being judged and rewarded for it's wicked and evil ways and the worst is still to come - unless perhaps we as a nation repent and follow God's ways.



    God's kingdom is not of this world. I wish more Christians would keep that in mind before they spout off and look for ways to put their boot to the necks of harmless people. Part of me would like to see Christianity go back to the struggling upstart that it was in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Maybe then we would remember the important things, and remember what it was like to be on the underside of power. Remember what it's like to be treated mercilessly.



    And as for marriage, I'll listen to other opinions when heterosexuals have moral high ground to speak from on the subject. When Jesus said to take the plank from your own eye first, he was telling us to consider our own sins the worst above that of any other person, and deal with them. A lot of self-righteous people here need to take that to heart.



    And as for the vote, just because something is "the will of the people" doesn't make it right. A whole host of things we'd consider wrong have been enshrined in laws enacted by the people or their representatives. Doesn't mean the laws were good. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." —Thomas Jefferson



    Thankfully we aren't democracies. All 50 states are republics in their government, meaning the will of the people is balanced out. The US is a federative republic, and the same is true there. Just because a majority of the people want something doesn't mean they should get it.



    I applaud Apple's efforts.
  • Reply 576 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by age234 View Post


    I'm almost ashamed to claim the title "Christian" after reading all the insane drivel in this thread. I'm sorry for the impressions so many of you have had confirmed?we're not all like that.







    God's kingdom is not of this world. I wish more Christians would keep that in mind before they spout off and look for ways to put their boot to the necks of harmless people. Part of me would like to see Christianity go back to the struggling upstart that it was in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Maybe then we would remember the important things, and remember what it was like to be on the underside of power. Remember what it's like to be treated mercilessly.



    And as for marriage, I'll listen to other opinions when heterosexuals have moral high ground to speak from on the subject. When Jesus said to take the plank from your own eye first, he was telling us to consider our own sins the worst above that of any other person, and deal with them. A lot of self-righteous people here need to take that to heart.



    And as for the vote, just because something is "the will of the people" doesn't make it right. A whole host of things we'd consider wrong have been enshrined in laws enacted by the people or their representatives. Doesn't mean the laws were good. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." ?Thomas Jefferson



    I applaud Apple's efforts.



    I applaud those that stand in opposition to your "drivel".
  • Reply 577 of 1351
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 3rd Reich View Post






    This from a company who had a rainbow Apple logo in the past. With the company so close to the city of Nancy boys ( San Francisco) got to figure of them whispered the idea to Jobs when they were sharing a night of love. He is way too thin and stylish to be hetro.



    The Republik of Kalifornia is already the laughing stock of the nation leting the Nancy's marry will only add fuel to the fire. Why should a lousy 2 % of the population dictate terms to the majority?



    Ban gay marriage and execute those 4 judges who saw that we voted against this before and told us our votes do not count



    What a waste of money.



    For you Nancy boys who want gay marriage go suck a pickle



    I call shananigans on this post.



    This is a person on the opposite side of the debate, wanting to polarize people to his side by making a cartoon-Nazi post he hopes people will believe to be real.

    Shame on you, "3rd Reich". Make your argument honestly. Not this way.
  • Reply 578 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The last article of the Constitution ends in a period, too, yet it has been amended 27 times. Or does the repelling of the Prohibition of Alcohol count as the 28th time.



    Shh, shh. No, that didn't happen. The Will of the Majority? is always, ALWAYS correct!
  • Reply 579 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    I applaud those that stand in opposition to your "drivel".



    That is your right, and I applaud your exercise of it. Because as far as the government is concerned, I am for everyone having the liberty to do whatever they want, so long as their liberty does not harm any other actual person.
  • Reply 580 of 1351
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by city View Post


    See Namdnal Siroj Post #508 "Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.

    It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.

    For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example."



    amen!



    Although, your point will be lost on most of these folks, because they seem determined just to make a stink about it. I think very few are reading with their minds. Only their emotions.
Sign In or Register to comment.