Marriage, as it exists today is a legal term to everyone but has spiritual connotations for some and is sacred (as is a cow in hinduism) however that doesn't mean that the spiritual connotations has to be enforced on all of society.
That will be fine, so long as there is no attempt to impose the new legal definitions on those who have a spiritual, moral definition that differs.
And here we are, again, the people who are fighting for equality going on an endless rampage about how have a difference of opinion makes you either "ignorant" or, in the words of the idiotic majority "an enemy of human decency." That sounds like complete and total intolerance to say that someone who has a different opinion than you is "an enemy of human decency" but, as I've come to expect, if you disagree with the liberal movement you're a racist/hypocrit/insert negative word here. There is no acceptance of a differing opinion at all - either you agree with them or you're wrong. Yeah, ok, keep it classy guys...
And here we are, again, the people who are fighting for equality going on an endless rampage about how have a difference of opinion makes you either "ignorant" or, in the words of the idiotic majority "an enemy of human decency." That sounds like complete and total intolerance to say that someone who has a different opinion than you is "an enemy of human decency" but, as I've come to expect, if you disagree with the liberal movement you're a racist/hypocrit/insert negative word here. There is no acceptance of a differing opinion at all - either you agree with them or you're wrong. Yeah, ok, keep it classy guys...
The issue we're going to run into now is whether or not those who disagree with the idea of same-gender marriage will be forced to accept it in one way or another. For example, will churches be forced to perform same-gender marriage ceremonies. Will companies be forced to provide benefits for such couples? Will businesses be forced (or sued) to accomodate a same-gender wedding ceremony even if they are morally opposed to it?
I have no problem with anyone "marrying" whomever they like (consenting adults assumed here.) To each their own. I don't agree with same-gender "marriage" personally and believe marriage is a defined by God to be between a single man and a single woman. But it's not my right to impose that on anyone else. At the same time, it no one's right to impose a differing view on my or my business or whatever. In other words, do as you wish...but it stops short when you want to compel others to support, recognize or approve of it. That, I'm sure, is the next step here.
And, sadly, you'll be viewed as an "enemy of human decency" amongst other things simply because you don't agree on a social issue - it's absurd... Oh, and a bigot to be sure - your views are only allowed it they agree with the liberal agenda, if they don't then you're a hateful bigot with nothing but hate in your heart...
Procreation and raising children is in my view the real legitimate reason to marry, anything else is out of convenience, benefits, money, or something else.
We should all realize there is a difference between what individuals believe, and what is law or public policy. Of course individuals can hold beliefs separate from what policy is -- it is an opinion.
Government in this situation, like most others, is the problem and never the solution! I said marriage should be a private matter, I did not say anything about religion -- that was you.
No I am for liberty in both social and economic matters, which is different than a conservative.
It is deplorable that Cook did not stand up more strongly to government's FAR excessive taxation levels in this country, as Apple knows well and had an opportunity to make a much stronger statement to the Senate subcommittee. Instead makes statements about this which is far less important. Why, because if everyone paid far less taxes, they would have far more disposable income available, and bennies would be far less a driver for marriage, etc.
I very rarely say this to people i don't agree with, especially on the internet - but you are an idiot. Love is the "legitimate" reason to get married, not to have children. I have been happily married to my wife for just over ten years (together for 16), and have a better marriage than just about anyone I know - people tell ME that, i don't just pat ourselves on the back. She treats me like a person, not "the husband". She's my best friend and the person I instantly text when something just happened and I need to tell someone about it. We can't have kids, but there is more value in our relationship than most "breeders" I've met. The idea of love being under the "something else" category of "legitimate" reasons is very sad.
Edit: My apologies. Calling you an idiot was stupid on my part. I saw red due to my own situation and took a comment not even directed at me personal. I regret it but won't remove it to explain my apology.
So, ultimately, the government should stay out of marriage entirely. It has no business in it at all. Not defining what it is or saying who can do it (with the possible exclusion of someone exploiting a minor in some manner.)
That's impossible when the government still collects taxes and gives tax breaks on different aspects of "the family". To know which tax breaks apply to whom, legal definition is required. The idea of a marriage has so many implications in every type of legal discipline that it needs to be defined to properly administer.
That's impossible when the government still collects taxes and gives tax breaks on different aspects of "the family". To know which tax breaks apply to whom, legal definition is required.
The problem there is with the tax code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
The idea of a marriage has so many implications in every type of legal discipline that it needs to be defined to properly administer.
Really? Like what? And, even if so, why do you assume that a standard, suitable definition cannot emerge without the government's meddling? This happens all the time and has for centuries.
And here we are, again, the people who are fighting for equality going on an endless rampage about how have a difference of opinion makes you either "ignorant" or, in the words of the idiotic majority "an enemy of human decency." That sounds like complete and total intolerance to say that someone who has a different opinion than you is "an enemy of human decency" but, as I've come to expect, if you disagree with the liberal movement you're a racist/hypocrit/insert negative word here. There is no acceptance of a differing opinion at all - either you agree with them or you're wrong. Yeah, ok, keep it classy guys...
You are right, some take it too far on a personal level, but that is because it hits home to them, and me, as my best friend is gay and seeing the suffering he's gone though (push-back against his general "being") is difficult. However, keep in mind that while there are two side to this, one side negatively effects other people's lives and reduces their human equity - the other side of the argument doesn't actually effect the detractor's lives in the least. Gay marriage doesn't effect straight marriage even on the most marginal level. I say this with confidence since I live in Canada (it's been legal here nationally for 7 years and in my province for over 10) and there has been no effect to my hetero marriage at all. Like, none. So let me try to repair this. I don't think you are racist or a hypocrite or that you yourself are ignorant. I think you have certain views that I don't agree with, but I will admit I used to share then in my early years until I met one of my best friends and he came out a few years later. Then I realized there was literally no difference in him. He was that same person (we still liked the same video games, music, still a dependable friend) and it was no different that if one of my hetero buddies liked a girl I didn't find attractive (to each their own, I guess, right?). So while I don't think you are ignorant (I don't know you) I do see some of your views are a bit ignorant (traditional definition, not to be insulting) but our views/opinions are not who we are at our core but how we see things right now. These things evolve over time, mine did. Hopefully, you get to know some people who open your mind a bit and maybe see things in a more sensitive light when you are ready. Until then I think it would be great if we not only stayed out of people's business but also didn't legislate laws that let people determine other people's business on a personal level - cross the board, full stop. If it doesn't effect us or those who are not able to consent, we should probably not be involved in the process of creating mandates for it.
I think you would have great difficulty establishing mutual informed consent in the second instance [human-animal].
Yes, today we are limited by "great difficulty establishing mutual informed consent" and by law requiring that consent. Both things could change in the future. But think outside of the box: both science and law evolve. Things that were unheard of 200 years ago are considered normal today.
Completely agree. It will take some smart people to figure out how to help the middle class with tax breaks without going straight to the catch-all "support families" when "families" have a more broad definition than it may have been 50-60 years ago that doesn't alienate a huge swath of taxpayers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Really? Like what? And, even if so, why do you assume that a standard, suitable definition cannot emerge without the government's meddling? This happens all the time and has for centuries.
Well, of the top of my head, such as how a spouse can't be forced to implicate their partner. Immigration and residency rights. Visitation rights. Inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will. The list is long actually and most important it varies from state to state. What happens if someone moves due to work? How can you have varying rights in various places in the UNITED states? Look at what happens in California with Medical Marijuana (legal in the state, even licensed) but it still deemed illegal by the feds and subject to seizure. I wouldn't want a couple to be vacationing out of state, have their partner fall sick and he now has no hospital visiting rights because he's male and not female.
Completely agree. It will take some smart people to figure out how to help the middle class with tax breaks without going straight to the catch-all "support families" when "families" have a more broad definition than it may have been 50-60 years ago that doesn't alienate a huge swath of taxpayers.
Or you just simplify the tax code to eliminate the special cases. Or, better yet, eliminate the income tax. Problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Well, of the top of my head, such as how a spouse can't be forced to implicate their partner.
That seems like an artificial and unnecessary legal construction. It can go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Immigration and residency rights. Visitation rights. Inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will. The list is long actually and most important it varies from state to state. What happens if someone moves due to work? How can you have varying rights in various places in the UNITED states? Look at what happens in California with Medical Marijuana (legal in the state, even licensed) but it still deemed illegal by the feds and subject to seizure. I wouldn't want a couple to be vacationing out of state, have their partner fall sick and he now has no hospital visiting rights because he's male and not female.
All of these things can be handled without the government. The immigration one is yet another constructed legal barrier.
You're also suggesting the imposition, by law, of certain values and rules on others (visitation rights) through the state. This is actually part of the problem. Let's take the popular "visitation rights" meme.
First, let's explode it out from the shorten expression to what is really being said:
I want the right to visit my same-gender "married" partner on someone else's private property regardless of what the owners of that private property believe are accept.
So, now what happens is you want to use the state to force another party to abdicate their rights and beliefs for yours.
In everything you've said, you've actually made my case for me. The government meddles in various ways (large and small, narrow and broad) infringing upon people's basic natural liberty. This creates any number of obvious and non-obvious problems, so then we call for more (theoretically) compensating interventions by the government to "fix" the problems created by its previous interventions instead of moving the other direction and undoing its mess by stepping out of the way.
Bottom line...the state has absolutely no business, no right and no privilege in the area of personal relationships. Period. This doesn't mean it doesn't act like it does. Clearly it does. It also doesn't mean there aren't a lot of ignorant and superficially analytical people clamoring for it to meddle more. But, as a point of fact, it has no right and no business doing so.
As a shareholder, I find it rather disappointing that Apple is making political statements that may adversely affect people's opinion of the company negatively. History shows that anytime a company makes political statements, that consumers remember and that biases their view of a company. I.e. this may affect sales.
Apple should keep the press releases focused on winning customers by telling us about exciting new products.
Or you just simplify the tax code to eliminate the special cases. Or, better yet, eliminate the income tax. Problem solved.
No. Things need to get paid for to keep society running especially at the size modern society is. Completely eliminating income tax is unrealistic when looking at a united society of +300 Million. We are probably not going to agree on that but I totally agree with a more aggressive simplification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
That seems like an artificial and unnecessary legal construction. It can go away.
Agree, but heavily used, so it won't and if it's staying the right thing to do is not pick and choose who can use it. If one can, all can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
All of these things can be handled without the government. The immigration one is yet another constructed legal barrier.
You're also suggesting the imposition, by law, of certain values and rules on others (visitation rights) through the state. This is actually part of the problem. Let's take the popular "visitation rights" meme.
First, let's explode it out from the shorten expression to what is really being said:
I want the right to visit my same-gender "married" partner on someone else's private property regardless of what the owners of that private property believe are accept.
So, now what happens is you want to use the state to force another party to abdicate their rights and beliefs for yours.
In everything you've said, you've actually made my case for me. The government meddles in various ways (large and small, narrow and broad) infringing upon people's basic natural liberty. This creates any number of obvious and non-obvious problems, so then we call for more (theoretically) compensating interventions by the government to "fix" the problems created by its previous interventions instead of moving the other direction and undoing its mess by stepping out of the way.
Bottom line...the state has absolutely no business, no right and no privilege in the area of personal relationships. Period. This doesn't mean it doesn't act like it does. Clearly it does. It also doesn't mean there aren't a lot of ignorant and superficially analytical people clamoring for it to meddle more. But, as a point of fact, it has no right and no business doing so.
That's fine, as long as it is equal. As private property, they have the right to do as they wish - as long as they aren't using tax funds in any way, shape or form. If they are, it has to be down the middle. If you are NOT completely private (to me, that's using tax dollars) you should not have the right to discriminate one tax-payer from another. Give the money back, then do as you wish.
Your issue is the government (obviously) and I don't completely share it. I don't need it up ended, just minimized and held accountable. I see many issue where a state and federal government can be very valuable in many ways where a smaller government wouldn't have the scope to do so - just my opinion from my life experience. But to be honest for this argument - government is less the issue than those using it to keep people marginalized in the current system. Gay people who just want to get married or adopt a child will see their life and the lives of their loved ones expire before change happens. They have more immediate issues than government scope and structure in their personal lives that other in a more fortunate situation may take for granted.
As a shareholder, I find it rather disappointing that Apple is making political statements that may adversely affect people's opinion of the company negatively. History shows that anytime a company makes political statements, that consumers remember and that biases their view of a company. I.e. this may affect sales.
Apple should keep the press releases focused on winning customers by telling us about exciting new products.
Look at it from a potential employee's perspective rather than as a shareholder's. I, too, am a shareholder and it didn't bother me... mostly because I could see it wasn't for me. All perspective, I guess.
Its never a good idea to mix politics with business. We all know that Jobs was a bit of a left winger, but the great products keeps conservatives, even Rush Limbaugh, buying. If they now start issuing pronouncements on ever political issue of the day then it can only hurt sales.
No. Things need to get paid for to keep society running especially at the size modern society is.
Now you're begging the question. *sigh*
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Agree, but heavily used, so it won't and if it's staying the right thing to do is not pick and choose who can use it. If one can, all can.
So let's continue to pile one bad idea on top of another?! Brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
That's fine, as long as it is equal. As private property, they have the right to do as they wish - as long as they aren't using tax funds in any way, shape or form. If they are, it has to be down the middle. If you are NOT completely private (to me, that's using tax dollars) you should not have the right to discriminate one tax-payer from another. Give the money back, then do as you wish.
Fair enough. I agree with that.
(waits for the slow expansion of the definition of "using tax funds" to the point where a catch-22 is created in which no one is free.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Your issue is the government (obviously) and I don't completely share it. I don't need it up ended, just minimized and held accountable.
Good luck with that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I see many issue where a state and federal government can be very valuable in many ways where a smaller government wouldn't have the scope to do so - just my opinion from my life experience.
You're right, we disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
But to be honest for this argument - government is less the issue than those using it to keep people marginalized in the current system. Gay people who just want to get married or adopt a child will see their life and the lives of their loved ones expire before change happens. They have more immediate issues than government scope and structure in their personal lives that other in a more fortunate situation may take for granted.
And this is where you have it completely backwards, upside down and inside out. The root problem is the government and the powers it has to even be able to do the things you object to.
Until you realize that, you'll be chasing the fantasy of accountable government. Good luck.
As a shareholder, I find it rather disappointing that Apple is making political statements that may adversely affect people's opinion of the company negatively. History shows that anytime a company makes political statements, that consumers remember and that biases their view of a company. I.e. this may affect sales.
Apple should keep the press releases focused on winning customers by telling us about exciting new products.
Its never a good idea to mix politics with business. We all know that Jobs was a bit of a left winger, but the great products keeps conservatives, even Rush Limbaugh, buying. If they now start issuing pronouncements on ever political issue of the day then it can only hurt sales.
Not to pick on you two, because no one else realized it either, but if you glance at the original All Things D story, it is clear Apple was asked to comment on the ruling!!!
115 posts and nobody observes that? What is wrong with you people?
Bottom line...the state has absolutely no business, no right and no privilege in the area of personal relationships. Period. This doesn't mean it doesn't act like it does. Clearly it does. It also doesn't mean there aren't a lot of ignorant and superficially analytical people clamoring for it to meddle more. But, as a point of fact, it has no right and no business doing so.
<liberal name calling>You are a fool.</liberal name calling>
It is absolutely the business of the government to ensure a fair playing field for all of it's citizens. That requires interference in personal relationships because history clearly shows that humans very rarely do that willing.
Or maybe you think that blacks should still be forced to used different bathrooms than whites. Or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Marriage, as it exists today is a legal term to everyone but has spiritual connotations for some and is sacred (as is a cow in hinduism) however that doesn't mean that the spiritual connotations has to be enforced on all of society.
That will be fine, so long as there is no attempt to impose the new legal definitions on those who have a spiritual, moral definition that differs.
We'll see...but I suspect there will be.
And here we are, again, the people who are fighting for equality going on an endless rampage about how have a difference of opinion makes you either "ignorant" or, in the words of the idiotic majority "an enemy of human decency." That sounds like complete and total intolerance to say that someone who has a different opinion than you is "an enemy of human decency" but, as I've come to expect, if you disagree with the liberal movement you're a racist/hypocrit/insert negative word here. There is no acceptance of a differing opinion at all - either you agree with them or you're wrong. Yeah, ok, keep it classy guys...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
And here we are, again, the people who are fighting for equality going on an endless rampage about how have a difference of opinion makes you either "ignorant" or, in the words of the idiotic majority "an enemy of human decency." That sounds like complete and total intolerance to say that someone who has a different opinion than you is "an enemy of human decency" but, as I've come to expect, if you disagree with the liberal movement you're a racist/hypocrit/insert negative word here. There is no acceptance of a differing opinion at all - either you agree with them or you're wrong. Yeah, ok, keep it classy guys...
+1 this
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
The issue we're going to run into now is whether or not those who disagree with the idea of same-gender marriage will be forced to accept it in one way or another. For example, will churches be forced to perform same-gender marriage ceremonies. Will companies be forced to provide benefits for such couples? Will businesses be forced (or sued) to accomodate a same-gender wedding ceremony even if they are morally opposed to it?
I have no problem with anyone "marrying" whomever they like (consenting adults assumed here.) To each their own. I don't agree with same-gender "marriage" personally and believe marriage is a defined by God to be between a single man and a single woman. But it's not my right to impose that on anyone else. At the same time, it no one's right to impose a differing view on my or my business or whatever. In other words, do as you wish...but it stops short when you want to compel others to support, recognize or approve of it. That, I'm sure, is the next step here.
And, sadly, you'll be viewed as an "enemy of human decency" amongst other things simply because you don't agree on a social issue - it's absurd... Oh, and a bigot to be sure - your views are only allowed it they agree with the liberal agenda, if they don't then you're a hateful bigot with nothing but hate in your heart...
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall
Procreation and raising children is in my view the real legitimate reason to marry, anything else is out of convenience, benefits, money, or something else.
We should all realize there is a difference between what individuals believe, and what is law or public policy. Of course individuals can hold beliefs separate from what policy is -- it is an opinion.
Government in this situation, like most others, is the problem and never the solution! I said marriage should be a private matter, I did not say anything about religion -- that was you.
No I am for liberty in both social and economic matters, which is different than a conservative.
It is deplorable that Cook did not stand up more strongly to government's FAR excessive taxation levels in this country, as Apple knows well and had an opportunity to make a much stronger statement to the Senate subcommittee. Instead makes statements about this which is far less important. Why, because if everyone paid far less taxes, they would have far more disposable income available, and bennies would be far less a driver for marriage, etc.
I very rarely say this to people i don't agree with, especially on the internet - but you are an idiot. Love is the "legitimate" reason to get married, not to have children. I have been happily married to my wife for just over ten years (together for 16), and have a better marriage than just about anyone I know - people tell ME that, i don't just pat ourselves on the back. She treats me like a person, not "the husband". She's my best friend and the person I instantly text when something just happened and I need to tell someone about it. We can't have kids, but there is more value in our relationship than most "breeders" I've met. The idea of love being under the "something else" category of "legitimate" reasons is very sad.
Edit: My apologies. Calling you an idiot was stupid on my part. I saw red due to my own situation and took a comment not even directed at me personal. I regret it but won't remove it to explain my apology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
So, ultimately, the government should stay out of marriage entirely. It has no business in it at all. Not defining what it is or saying who can do it (with the possible exclusion of someone exploiting a minor in some manner.)
That's impossible when the government still collects taxes and gives tax breaks on different aspects of "the family". To know which tax breaks apply to whom, legal definition is required. The idea of a marriage has so many implications in every type of legal discipline that it needs to be defined to properly administer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
That's impossible when the government still collects taxes and gives tax breaks on different aspects of "the family". To know which tax breaks apply to whom, legal definition is required.
The problem there is with the tax code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
The idea of a marriage has so many implications in every type of legal discipline that it needs to be defined to properly administer.
Really? Like what? And, even if so, why do you assume that a standard, suitable definition cannot emerge without the government's meddling? This happens all the time and has for centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
And here we are, again, the people who are fighting for equality going on an endless rampage about how have a difference of opinion makes you either "ignorant" or, in the words of the idiotic majority "an enemy of human decency." That sounds like complete and total intolerance to say that someone who has a different opinion than you is "an enemy of human decency" but, as I've come to expect, if you disagree with the liberal movement you're a racist/hypocrit/insert negative word here. There is no acceptance of a differing opinion at all - either you agree with them or you're wrong. Yeah, ok, keep it classy guys...
You are right, some take it too far on a personal level, but that is because it hits home to them, and me, as my best friend is gay and seeing the suffering he's gone though (push-back against his general "being") is difficult. However, keep in mind that while there are two side to this, one side negatively effects other people's lives and reduces their human equity - the other side of the argument doesn't actually effect the detractor's lives in the least. Gay marriage doesn't effect straight marriage even on the most marginal level. I say this with confidence since I live in Canada (it's been legal here nationally for 7 years and in my province for over 10) and there has been no effect to my hetero marriage at all. Like, none. So let me try to repair this. I don't think you are racist or a hypocrite or that you yourself are ignorant. I think you have certain views that I don't agree with, but I will admit I used to share then in my early years until I met one of my best friends and he came out a few years later. Then I realized there was literally no difference in him. He was that same person (we still liked the same video games, music, still a dependable friend) and it was no different that if one of my hetero buddies liked a girl I didn't find attractive (to each their own, I guess, right?). So while I don't think you are ignorant (I don't know you) I do see some of your views are a bit ignorant (traditional definition, not to be insulting) but our views/opinions are not who we are at our core but how we see things right now. These things evolve over time, mine did. Hopefully, you get to know some people who open your mind a bit and maybe see things in a more sensitive light when you are ready. Until then I think it would be great if we not only stayed out of people's business but also didn't legislate laws that let people determine other people's business on a personal level - cross the board, full stop. If it doesn't effect us or those who are not able to consent, we should probably not be involved in the process of creating mandates for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
I think you would have great difficulty establishing mutual informed consent in the second instance [human-animal].
Yes, today we are limited by "great difficulty establishing mutual informed consent" and by law requiring that consent. Both things could change in the future. But think outside of the box: both science and law evolve. Things that were unheard of 200 years ago are considered normal today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
The problem there is with the tax code.
Completely agree. It will take some smart people to figure out how to help the middle class with tax breaks without going straight to the catch-all "support families" when "families" have a more broad definition than it may have been 50-60 years ago that doesn't alienate a huge swath of taxpayers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Really? Like what? And, even if so, why do you assume that a standard, suitable definition cannot emerge without the government's meddling? This happens all the time and has for centuries.
Well, of the top of my head, such as how a spouse can't be forced to implicate their partner. Immigration and residency rights. Visitation rights. Inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will. The list is long actually and most important it varies from state to state. What happens if someone moves due to work? How can you have varying rights in various places in the UNITED states? Look at what happens in California with Medical Marijuana (legal in the state, even licensed) but it still deemed illegal by the feds and subject to seizure. I wouldn't want a couple to be vacationing out of state, have their partner fall sick and he now has no hospital visiting rights because he's male and not female.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Completely agree. It will take some smart people to figure out how to help the middle class with tax breaks without going straight to the catch-all "support families" when "families" have a more broad definition than it may have been 50-60 years ago that doesn't alienate a huge swath of taxpayers.
Or you just simplify the tax code to eliminate the special cases. Or, better yet, eliminate the income tax. Problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Well, of the top of my head, such as how a spouse can't be forced to implicate their partner.
That seems like an artificial and unnecessary legal construction. It can go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Immigration and residency rights. Visitation rights. Inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will. The list is long actually and most important it varies from state to state. What happens if someone moves due to work? How can you have varying rights in various places in the UNITED states? Look at what happens in California with Medical Marijuana (legal in the state, even licensed) but it still deemed illegal by the feds and subject to seizure. I wouldn't want a couple to be vacationing out of state, have their partner fall sick and he now has no hospital visiting rights because he's male and not female.
All of these things can be handled without the government. The immigration one is yet another constructed legal barrier.
You're also suggesting the imposition, by law, of certain values and rules on others (visitation rights) through the state. This is actually part of the problem. Let's take the popular "visitation rights" meme.
First, let's explode it out from the shorten expression to what is really being said:
I want the right to visit my same-gender "married" partner on someone else's private property regardless of what the owners of that private property believe are accept.
So, now what happens is you want to use the state to force another party to abdicate their rights and beliefs for yours.
In everything you've said, you've actually made my case for me. The government meddles in various ways (large and small, narrow and broad) infringing upon people's basic natural liberty. This creates any number of obvious and non-obvious problems, so then we call for more (theoretically) compensating interventions by the government to "fix" the problems created by its previous interventions instead of moving the other direction and undoing its mess by stepping out of the way.
Bottom line...the state has absolutely no business, no right and no privilege in the area of personal relationships. Period. This doesn't mean it doesn't act like it does. Clearly it does. It also doesn't mean there aren't a lot of ignorant and superficially analytical people clamoring for it to meddle more. But, as a point of fact, it has no right and no business doing so.
As a shareholder, I find it rather disappointing that Apple is making political statements that may adversely affect people's opinion of the company negatively. History shows that anytime a company makes political statements, that consumers remember and that biases their view of a company. I.e. this may affect sales.
Apple should keep the press releases focused on winning customers by telling us about exciting new products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
Apple should keep the press releases focused on winning customers by telling us about exciting new products.
Amen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Or you just simplify the tax code to eliminate the special cases. Or, better yet, eliminate the income tax. Problem solved.
No. Things need to get paid for to keep society running especially at the size modern society is. Completely eliminating income tax is unrealistic when looking at a united society of +300 Million. We are probably not going to agree on that but I totally agree with a more aggressive simplification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
That seems like an artificial and unnecessary legal construction. It can go away.
Agree, but heavily used, so it won't and if it's staying the right thing to do is not pick and choose who can use it. If one can, all can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
All of these things can be handled without the government. The immigration one is yet another constructed legal barrier.
You're also suggesting the imposition, by law, of certain values and rules on others (visitation rights) through the state. This is actually part of the problem. Let's take the popular "visitation rights" meme.
First, let's explode it out from the shorten expression to what is really being said:
I want the right to visit my same-gender "married" partner on someone else's private property regardless of what the owners of that private property believe are accept.
So, now what happens is you want to use the state to force another party to abdicate their rights and beliefs for yours.
In everything you've said, you've actually made my case for me. The government meddles in various ways (large and small, narrow and broad) infringing upon people's basic natural liberty. This creates any number of obvious and non-obvious problems, so then we call for more (theoretically) compensating interventions by the government to "fix" the problems created by its previous interventions instead of moving the other direction and undoing its mess by stepping out of the way.
Bottom line...the state has absolutely no business, no right and no privilege in the area of personal relationships. Period. This doesn't mean it doesn't act like it does. Clearly it does. It also doesn't mean there aren't a lot of ignorant and superficially analytical people clamoring for it to meddle more. But, as a point of fact, it has no right and no business doing so.
That's fine, as long as it is equal. As private property, they have the right to do as they wish - as long as they aren't using tax funds in any way, shape or form. If they are, it has to be down the middle. If you are NOT completely private (to me, that's using tax dollars) you should not have the right to discriminate one tax-payer from another. Give the money back, then do as you wish.
Your issue is the government (obviously) and I don't completely share it. I don't need it up ended, just minimized and held accountable. I see many issue where a state and federal government can be very valuable in many ways where a smaller government wouldn't have the scope to do so - just my opinion from my life experience. But to be honest for this argument - government is less the issue than those using it to keep people marginalized in the current system. Gay people who just want to get married or adopt a child will see their life and the lives of their loved ones expire before change happens. They have more immediate issues than government scope and structure in their personal lives that other in a more fortunate situation may take for granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
As a shareholder, I find it rather disappointing that Apple is making political statements that may adversely affect people's opinion of the company negatively. History shows that anytime a company makes political statements, that consumers remember and that biases their view of a company. I.e. this may affect sales.
Apple should keep the press releases focused on winning customers by telling us about exciting new products.
Look at it from a potential employee's perspective rather than as a shareholder's. I, too, am a shareholder and it didn't bother me... mostly because I could see it wasn't for me. All perspective, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
No. Things need to get paid for to keep society running especially at the size modern society is.
Now you're begging the question. *sigh*
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Agree, but heavily used, so it won't and if it's staying the right thing to do is not pick and choose who can use it. If one can, all can.
So let's continue to pile one bad idea on top of another?! Brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
That's fine, as long as it is equal. As private property, they have the right to do as they wish - as long as they aren't using tax funds in any way, shape or form. If they are, it has to be down the middle. If you are NOT completely private (to me, that's using tax dollars) you should not have the right to discriminate one tax-payer from another. Give the money back, then do as you wish.
Fair enough. I agree with that.
(waits for the slow expansion of the definition of "using tax funds" to the point where a catch-22 is created in which no one is free.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Your issue is the government (obviously) and I don't completely share it. I don't need it up ended, just minimized and held accountable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I see many issue where a state and federal government can be very valuable in many ways where a smaller government wouldn't have the scope to do so - just my opinion from my life experience.
You're right, we disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
But to be honest for this argument - government is less the issue than those using it to keep people marginalized in the current system. Gay people who just want to get married or adopt a child will see their life and the lives of their loved ones expire before change happens. They have more immediate issues than government scope and structure in their personal lives that other in a more fortunate situation may take for granted.
And this is where you have it completely backwards, upside down and inside out. The root problem is the government and the powers it has to even be able to do the things you object to.
Until you realize that, you'll be chasing the fantasy of accountable government. Good luck.
Not to pick on you two, because no one else realized it either, but if you glance at the original All Things D story, it is clear Apple was asked to comment on the ruling!!!
115 posts and nobody observes that? What is wrong with you people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Bottom line...the state has absolutely no business, no right and no privilege in the area of personal relationships. Period. This doesn't mean it doesn't act like it does. Clearly it does. It also doesn't mean there aren't a lot of ignorant and superficially analytical people clamoring for it to meddle more. But, as a point of fact, it has no right and no business doing so.
<liberal name calling>You are a fool.</liberal name calling>
It is absolutely the business of the government to ensure a fair playing field for all of it's citizens. That requires interference in personal relationships because history clearly shows that humans very rarely do that willing.
Or maybe you think that blacks should still be forced to used different bathrooms than whites. Or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
<liberal name calling>You are a fool.</liberal name calling>
I'll just stop there.