Apple, Google, hundreds of other US companies file court brief in support of same-sex marriage

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 139
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,474moderator

    I can link studies all day (and I'll provide one below) but at some point things are accepted on personal experience and faith. Most people rarely change opinions, claiming that studies are biased or just disallowing them from the source.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

    People can try to keep forcing the issue, it's not going to work. Kids need a mom and a dad, not two dads, two moms, or one parent.

    Can you link one that isn't $36 to see it?

    The following page summarizes the findings:

    http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexual-parent-study-summary-of-findings

    The sample size was about 3000 people. A lot of the statements won't be directly related to the parenting - it's a study of correlation, not causation. Further down it mentions the criticisms including comparing unstable family situations with stable ones but it says that this is because "of the 248 children with homosexual parents who were surveyed, only two had lived with their homosexual parent and the parent's partner during their entire childhood from birth to age 18". Only 10 children out of 248 stayed with the parents for over 13 years. There's a Q&A here with the researcher who's Catholic:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/06/q-a-with-mark-regnerus-about-the-background-of-his-new-study/

    One of the questions was whether gay marriage could be the solution to producing a more stable environment. I could see children wanting to find their biological parents regardless. No matter how close Steve Jobs was to his adoptive family, he still wanted to find his biological parents after all those years. Genetic heritage is a very strong bond to break because it's part of who you are.

    The issue of marriage is only indirectly related to raising children although in some places adoption or surrogacy requires marriage and there are a lot of different scenarios such as a woman having kids to then split with her husband and raise the kids with another woman. They're going to be together anyway so marriage is just beneficial to them.
  • Reply 42 of 139
    smurfman wrote: »
    sog35 wrote: »
    I await the comments of our resident conservative wacko's

    This says a lot about the mentality of the liberal "progressive". If I believe homosexual behavior is not only wrong but an offense against even the basic laws of nature, I'm labeled a conservative wacko.

    This is the beginning of major persecution against anyone who disagrees with the liberal progressive. It's NOT a step forward but a major step backward when good people are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or even put in jail for politely standing by their religious convictions – not hurting ANYONE.

    This is hypocritical, disturbing, and wicked to destroy indivual and family businesses because they cannot, in good conscience, support homosexual marriage. Families have already lost their businesses because friends and neighbors have not respected their religious convictions but rather have taken them to court! Selfish and wicked.

    But what value does my voice have? None, because I'm labeled a "wacko"!

    Very well said.

    Marriage is between man and wife for the procreation of children. There is no other.
  • Reply 43 of 139
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    The following page summarizes the findings:



    http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexual-parent-study-summary-of-findings



    The sample size was about 3000 people. A lot of the statements won't be directly related to the parenting - it's a study of correlation, not causation. Further down it mentions the criticisms including comparing unstable family situations with stable ones but it says that this is because "of the 248 children with homosexual parents who were surveyed, only two had lived with their homosexual parent and the parent's partner during their entire childhood from birth to age 18". Only 10 children out of 248 stayed with the parents for over 13 years. There's a Q&A here with the researcher who's Catholic:



    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/06/q-a-with-mark-regnerus-about-the-background-of-his-new-study/



    One of the questions was whether gay marriage could be the solution to producing a more stable environment. I could see children wanting to find their biological parents regardless. No matter how close Steve Jobs was to his adoptive family, he still wanted to find his biological parents after all those years. Genetic heritage is a very strong bond to break because it's part of who you are.



    The issue of marriage is only indirectly related to raising children although in some places adoption or surrogacy requires marriage and there are a lot of different scenarios such as a woman having kids to then split with her husband and raise the kids with another woman. They're going to be together anyway so marriage is just beneficial to them.



    There is one simple rule that gays seems to dismiss. If being gay was natural which means "intended by nature" then two men or two women could procreate. Without science that will never be the case because it was never intended by nature. 

     

    I'm a conservative and I have no issue with gay marriage or equal rights when it comes to benefits. What I do take issue with is people acting as if it's natural or having two of the same sex parents is healthy. It isn't. We don't need the SCOTUS to tell us that, nature has already spoken. 

     

    If not for heterosexuals we wouldn't have to worry about these issues our species would be extinct. If everyone moving forward was like Tim Cook we wouldn't have to wonder about the next iPhone or iPad there wouldn't be anyone around to use them. 

  • Reply 44 of 139
    ipenipen Posts: 410member

    IRS loves all the marriage tax penalty.

  • Reply 45 of 139
    snapjacksnapjack Posts: 12member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Very well said.



    The intolerance of those demanding homosexual marriage is no better than the intolerance of Hitler against the Jews.



    Marriage is between man and wife for the procreation of children. There is no other.



    There is no other option than to allow all equal protection under our laws. That is the only right thing to do. How do you justify deny other people the same rights you have? 

  • Reply 46 of 139
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snapjack View Post

     



    There is no other option than to allow all equal protection under our laws. That is the only right thing to do. How do you justify deny other people the same rights you have? 




    Absolutely right. Equal protection should mean no unique benefits to marrieds which are in effect discriminatory to unmarrieds.

  • Reply 47 of 139
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,494member
     Quote:



    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Very well said.



    The intolerance of those demanding homosexual marriage is no better than the intolerance of Hitler against the Jews.



    Marriage is between man and wife for the procreation of children. There is no other.

     

    So, should we ban marriage for infertile couples and women who are past their childrearing age?  You are clearly not smart. 

  • Reply 48 of 139
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by netrox View Post

     

     

    So, should we ban marriage for infertile couples and women who are past their childrearing age?  You are clearly not smart. 




    "Society" should have absolutely no input on the matter. This is why democracies are dangerous. The "majority" opinion is foisted on the minority, or the individual. In Sweden, I recall children being removed from their parents because the mother was deemed to be "too fat". Outrageous.

  • Reply 49 of 139
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by netrox View Post

     

     

    So, should we ban marriage for infertile couples and women who are past their childrearing age?  You are clearly not smart. 




    That's an idiotic comment. Trying to compare a health issue with attempting to defy the laws of nature. 

  • Reply 50 of 139
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    That's an idiotic comment. Trying to compare a health issue with attempting to defy the laws of nature. 




    Fortunately, our constitutionally protected rights exist in the US to guard against such incursions against individuals. People and government regularly attempt to circumvent or undermine individual rights and those incursions must continually be fought, otherwise those protections will be wiped away.

  • Reply 51 of 139
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    atlapple wrote: »
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/185091/apple-google-hundreds-of-other-us-companies-file-court-brief-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage/40#post_2686918" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>netrox</strong> <a href="/t/185091/apple-google-hundreds-of-other-us-companies-file-court-brief-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage/40#post_2686918"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <p> </p><p>So, should we ban marriage for infertile couples and women who are past their childrearing age?  You are clearly not smart. </p></div></div><p><br />That's an idiotic comment. Trying to compare a health issue with attempting to defy the laws of nature. </p>
    Law of nature?
    Can you show that law? Any proof that it exists or is it a figment of your imagination?
  • Reply 52 of 139
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,494member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    That's an idiotic comment. Trying to compare a health issue with attempting to defy the laws of nature. 


    What if the couple doesn't want to have children? Should we ban them from marrying? You know there are several married couples who made a choice not to have children? 

  • Reply 53 of 139
    snapjacksnapjack Posts: 12member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    That's an idiotic comment. Trying to compare a health issue with attempting to defy the laws of nature. 




    I thought it was proven that the laws of nature apply here, there are homosexual animals throughout the world. Nothing unnatural about it, except to you.

  • Reply 54 of 139
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    "Society" should have absolutely no input on the matter. This is why democracies are dangerous. The "majority" opinion is foisted on the minority, or the individual. In Sweden, I recall children being removed from their parents because the mother was deemed to be "too fat". Outrageous.




    This issue has been a trojan horse forever. It started out as two people that love each other should be allowed to get married and was never about anything other then federal benefits. It's just as dangerous when issues like this are push by the elite wealthy minority. 

  • Reply 55 of 139
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,494member

    Homophobes are against gay marriage just like racists are against interracial marriage. And the nerve of them to justify their bigotry on their religious beliefs - same thing:

     

    "In the 1970s, Thomas and Carol Anne Person were rejected by two North Carolina court magistrates when they tried to obtain a civil marriage license. The magistrates claimed that marrying a black man and a white woman would go against their religious beliefs, but they were eventually ordered by a federal judge to perform the marriage."

     

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/rachelwitkin/north_carolina_bill

  • Reply 56 of 139
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    This issue has been a trojan horse forever. It started out as two people that love each other should be allowed to get married and was never about anything other then federal benefits. It's just as dangerous when issues like this are push by the elite wealthy minority. 




    The history of marriage is long:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

     

    Marriage is an unnatural state for the human animal. By my own estimation, the unspoken purpose of marriage is to prevent unwed mothers from becoming an undue burden on others (aka "society") and to essentially guarantee the state a growing base of productive taxpayers, but this is all disguised and made more palatable with the rewards and punishments described by religions.

  • Reply 57 of 139
    creek0512creek0512 Posts: 111member
    smurfman wrote: »
    This says a lot about the mentality of the liberal "progressive". If I believe homosexual behavior is not only wrong but an offense against even the basic laws of nature, I'm labeled a conservative wacko.

    This is the beginning of major persecution against anyone who disagrees with the liberal progressive. It's NOT a step forward but a major step backward when good people are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or even put in jail for politely standing by their religious convictions – not hurting ANYONE.

    This is hypocritical, disturbing, and wicked to destroy indivual and family businesses because they cannot, in good conscience, support homosexual marriage. Families have already lost their businesses because friends and neighbors have not respected their religious convictions but rather have taken them to court! Selfish and wicked.

    But what value does my voice have? None, because I'm labeled a "wacko"!

    Gotta admire the complete lack of self awareness of people claiming they are being discriminated against for not being allowed to descriminate against a group of citizens.
  • Reply 58 of 139
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snapjack View Post

     



    I thought it was proven that the laws of nature apply here, there are homosexual animals throughout the world. Nothing unnatural about it, except to you.




    It is the law of nature that women at some point can not have children. Having a health issue is not the law of nature. The same laws apply to any species, they would not exist if even the majority of that species was homosexual. I already stated in my first post to Marvin I have no issue with same sex marriage or equal government benefits. What I do take issue with is people pretending two of the same sex being together is natural. It isn't.

     

    Let me put it in simple terms, it was intended by nature for a species to procreate which is the only way to ensure the survival of the species without the use of science. When two of the same sex can do the same then we can all agree is was intended by nature. I always have to include "the use of science" because that will always be the next argument by some nut job liberal. 

  • Reply 59 of 139
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    It is the law of nature that women at some point can not have children. Having a health issue is not the law of nature. The same laws apply to any species, they would not exist if even the majority of that species was homosexual. I already stated in my first post to Marvin I have no issue with same sex marriage or equal government benefits. What I do take issue with is people pretending two of the same sex being together is natural. It isn't.

     

    Let me put it in simple terms, it was intended by nature for a species to procreate which is the only way to ensure the survival of the species without the use of science. When two of the same sex can do the same then we can all agree is was intended by nature. I always have to include "the use of science" because that will always be the next argument by some nut job liberal. 




    The ancient Greeks and Romans were fine with things that might make you sick to your stomach. Many religions promote plural marriages. Applying the small slice of your life's experience against the biological and historical record may illustrate just how narrow is that experience. 

  • Reply 60 of 139
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,494member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     



    It is the law of nature that women at some point can not have children. Having a health issue is not the law of nature. The same laws apply to any species, they would not exist if even the majority of that species was homosexual. I already stated in my first post to Marvin I have no issue with same sex marriage or equal government benefits. What I do take issue with is people pretending two of the same sex being together is natural. It isn't.

     

    Let me put it in simple terms, it was intended by nature for a species to procreate which is the only way to ensure the survival of the species without the use of science. When two of the same sex can do the same then we can all agree is was intended by nature. I always have to include "the use of science" because that will always be the next argument by some nut job liberal. 


     

     

    Please... "natural" is subjective. Homosexuality exists in many species. What is "natural?" Really? 

     

    And in the future, we'll have the ability to grow babies in artificial wombs. Natural? Nope but it would probably be in the best interest for many women who do not wish to risk potential complications that come with pregnancy. 

     

    "Natural" is just useless. It's subjective. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. 

Sign In or Register to comment.