Apple Among 60 Companies to File Statement with U.S. Supreme Court Backing Gay Marriage

[melendezest]

Really? I have my fair share of sex but I use my organ to pee way more than to ****.

As I pointed out to someone else, I was sticking to functions as related to sexual activity, which is what the debate is about. Orgasms facilitate reproduction. While some may combine the two (excretory and sexual functions) for the purposes of gratification, said gratification is still secondary to the organs' primary function.

My point alludes to the discrepancy that exists with how we choose to use the equipment and its intended purpose as related to the inherent attributes of said organs. There's a reason while they're also referred to in many medical manuals as the "reproductive organs." Any use that is not as intended precludes deviance. Deviance should be private (if consensual).

In other words, you can choose to walk on your hands if it pleases you (and have great balance), but that does not mean that the hands were intendedto be used for walking. But if you do it in public, people would (naturally) look at you funny...

 

[rdowns]

As I pointed out to someone else, I was sticking to functions as related to sexual activity, which is what the debate is about.

Clearly you have no idea what this debate is about.

 

[Oletros]

As I pointed out to someone else, I was sticking to functions as related to sexual activity, which is what the debate is about.

No, you can't be more wrong if you think that same sex marriage has anything to do with sexual activity

 

[BobVB]

My point alludes to the discrepancy that exists with how we choose to use the equipment and its intended purpose as related to the inherent attributes of said organs.)

Funny. The idea that you know what anything's 'intended' purpose is humorous.
Since 99%+ of sex is not related to reproduction I think you need to try again. Shoot using a frequency standard sex is more about the ability to give good speeches than it is reproduction and I'm pretty sure if we found babies under cabbage leaves people would still be having lots of sex.

"Intended purpose"... chortle.

 

[quagmire]

Not because of Apple's position or action, but based on responses in this thread. It has moved beyond whether marriage is a religious issue, gov't issue, or both. It's jumped off the cliff......

 

[melendezest]

Basically everyone who doesn't put their penis in a vagina has sexual deviance. If you've had or have oral sex, anal sex, masturbated, you have sexual deviance. So it brings up the question, if the vast majority of people practice at least one of the things mentioned above, should it be considered deviant in society? Or should, for example, straight people who practice oral sex have the right to criticise gays as being unnatural?

Lots of things now a days aren't in the norm of what's "natural", doesn't mean it's wrong.

Basically everyone who doesn't put their penis in a vagina has sexual deviance. If you've had or have oral sex, anal sex, masturbated, you have sexual deviance.

Excellent argument. Yes, deviance is deviance in that case, from a design (not moral or social) standpoint.

So it brings up the question, if the vast majority of people practice at least one of the things mentioned above, should it be considered deviant in society?

This is a good question that should be asked and discussed. The problem I see is that we are not discussing it. We have basically moved to "anyone who disagrees with homosexual behavior is wrong to even bring it up."

For example, for the purposes of the law, there are limitations to what is considered illegal sexual behavior. These things should be debated and agreed upon (and for the most part, they are). However, this strays into "moral" territory, which is subjective at best.

My original point obviates all this and makes the issue objective. Remove all moral, religious, or biased opinion (pro and against) and just look at the physical items utilized in the behavior. What are they for? From the standpoint of design, any deviation from design is just that: deviance.

Whether that deviance is acceptable is a "moral" issue. I just don't like that we want to make something acceptable "just because it's fun" for some people, without exploring the psychological aspects and consequences that the desire for deviance can have. We should start with the assertion that the there is normal behavior and deviant behavior. Homosexual behavior, along with others you mention, fall in the latter category. From there, then we should start discussing acceptability. This is not what is happening.

On a personal note, I feel that with deviance, there are consequences. The severity of those consequences should be accepted by those who choose to engage in sexually deviant behavior. This issue has bigger implications and consequences than most people are prepared to discuss, because nowadays it seems like if you disagree with the behavior, you're a bigot.

I for one, feel that it is a private matter and however you choose to live your life is your business. But you cannot make your deviance public and say that it is "normal" or "the right thing to do".

Perhaps we, as a society, can change the driving factors that are leading this debate around: We can change the law to allow the "rights" afforded to married couples to people who aren't married. This include family determination for medical purposes, legal rights to property, and the like, without having to make it a "gay rights" issue. Separate the sexual inclination from the citizen rights, as it were.

 

[BobVB]

Perhaps we, as a society, can change the driving factors that are leading this debate around: We can change the law to allow the "rights" afforded to married couples to people who aren't married.

It always surprises me that people don't understand what marriage is - it is just the registering of a legal familial relationship, that of spouse. Just like you can adopt a child you can marry a spouse. And all states have various things they automatically do and consider between spouses, just as they do with children and their parents. Your examples are all things that even non-spouses can establish but it misses the issue - talking about them is like talking about religion as the drive to church on Sunday.

Does the state legally register citizens and their husband or wife or not? If they do then it should for all citizens. Whatever that then leads to as far as promises and assumptions differs from state to state. Its the establishing a legal spousal relationship that is the core issue.

 

[likemyorbs]

Basically everyone who doesn't put their penis in a vagina has sexual deviance. If you've had or have oral sex, anal sex, masturbated, you have sexual deviance.


So it brings up the question, if the vast majority of people practice at least one of the things mentioned above, should it be considered deviant in society?

Holy crap I can't even remember how many different things I've stuck my penis in over the years. I'm screwed. Lock me up and throw away the key.

 

[Oletros]

Holy crap I can't even remember how many different things I've stuck my penis in over the years. I'm screwed. Lock me up and throw away the key.

Using the mouth to kiss other people must be a deviance according to him. The mouth's maiun purpose it is not kissing

 

[Gravity]

Yea, okay. Then why do they have lil soldiers and still have the drive to HAVE SEX? I may look like a bigot, but after your commment, you look like a proper nut.

Aside from the reasons that most are opposed, I am also opposed to you guys getting tax benefits. There, plain and simple. Same reason why I am opposed to illegal immigration. Tax reasons.

Have fun, not being married. Im out.

Do you see what you just did there? You assumed I'm Gay. I'm not. Totally hetero. But more enlightened, I should say, than yourself.

Why do they have little soldiers? Why do they still like to have sex? It probably has to do with the complexity of genetic structure... where gender preference is a simpler thing to toggle back or forth during fetal development... as opposed to completely switching off a being's biological instincts. Perhaps doing so would have more profound implications in other areas of the genetic structure...

All I'm saying is that sexual preference has a BIOLOGICAL BASIS. It is something someone is BORN WITH. It's not a choice... we're not talking right vs. wrong or good vs. evil. Just brain wiring.

For instance, some brains are wired for logic... while others are wired like yours.

 

[doelcm82]

Using the mouth to kiss other people must be a deviance according to him. The mouth's maiun purpose it is not kissing

It also follows that each time the male sex organ becomes tumescent, its owner must find a female sex organ to insert it into. Any other action is a perversion of the purpose of the erection.

 

[BobVB]

I'm going to say your knowledge of scripture is flawed in saying that sexual sins were held to a lower standard then.

And I'm going to say you don't understand what was said if you think this means a 'lower standard' all it means was a 'different standard'. Christians are allowed to 'bind and loosen' the purely terrestrial dogma as long as the result is still within Christ's Law. Paul said women couldn't teach men, no longer held. Jesus suggested that if someone were going to perfectly follow the Law they would never charge interest on loans, that too is no longer a widely held standard.

And similarly what is meant by 'sexual immorality' has adjusted with time, and well it should since sex is one of the few things we know isn't going to be happening in heaven (or taking Jesus's word the other way we are all going to be like we are having sex all the time with everyone - either way its not an issue)

We know that humans can pair bond with someone of either sex, most men do with women, most women with men but not all and its not inherently a violation of Christ's Law to do so. That's what Christians around the globe have decided, and that's why oddly enough some of the strongest supporters of marriage equality are Christians.

 

[Mrg02d]

Do you see what you just did there? You assumed I'm Gay. I'm not. Totally hetero. But more enlightened, I should say, than yourself.

Why do they have little soldiers? Why do they still like to have sex? It probably has to do with the complexity of genetic structure... where gender preference is a simpler thing to toggle back or forth during fetal development... as opposed to completely switching off a being's biological instincts. Perhaps doing so would have more profound implications in other areas of the genetic structure...

All I'm saying is that sexual preference has a BIOLOGICAL BASIS. It is something someone is BORN WITH. It's not a choice... we're not talking right vs. wrong or good vs. evil. Just brain wiring.

For instance, some brains are wired for logic... while others are wired like yours.

Sorry bruh, didnt realize I was dealing with a badass.

EDIT: Whats ironic is that you have assumed I am straight! I guess its impossible to be gay and be against gay marriage?

 

[seveej]

How did the stock react ?!?!?!?!

Just kidding.

Way to go Apple (and the 59 others).
Makes you wonder about one thing though: What about the rest of all companies - afraid of annoying the evangelicals?

RGDS,

 

[melendezest]

Funny. The idea that you know what anything's 'intended' purpose is humorous.
Since 99%+ of sex is not related to reproduction I think you need to try again. Shoot using a frequency standard sex is more about the ability to give good speeches than it is reproduction and I'm pretty sure if we found babies under cabbage leaves people would still be having lots of sex.

"Intended purpose"... chortle.

Maybe the word "intended' is not accurate enough. Allow me to explain what I mean:

In a human male, sexual stimulation(usually) leads to an orgasm, which in turn produces a specific fluid. What is the "intended" purpose of said fluid? Why does an orgasm result in said fluid's expenditure? To what end does the body go to the process of expelling that particular fluid at that particular time?

I am not debating whether or not sexual stimulation is pleasurable. I am trying to point out the reason why it is. The "why" is the reason for that organ to exist; it's "intended" purpose, as it were.

The heart pumps blood. The lungs process air. The male member expels sperm for the purpose of reproduction. The female ovaries release eggs to combine with sperm to generate more human beings. Male and female are required for this process to complete. I don't understand how this is a complex concept.

The fact that we can circumvent this process is another story entirely.

----------

No, you can't be more wrong if you think that same sex marriage has anything to do with sexual activity

Hmm. Seems pretty obvious to me. Marriage and sex are intertwined. To separate them is ridiculous. You can have sex without marriage, but I find the notion of marriage without sex unrealistic. Therefore, to speak of same gender marriage is to thus speak of a sexually deviant relationship.

 

[Oletros]

Maybe the word "intended' is not accurate enough. Allow me to explain what I mean:

In a human male, sexual stimulation(usually) leads to an orgasm, which in turn produces a specific fluid. What is the "intended" purpose of said fluid? Why does an orgasm result in said fluid's expenditure? To what end does the body go to the process of expelling that particular fluid at that particular time?

I am not debating whether or not sexual stimulation is pleasurable. I am trying to point out the reason why it is. The "why" is the reason for that organ to exist; it's "intended" purpose, as it were.

The heart pumps blood. The lungs process air. The male member expels sperm for the purpose of reproduction. The female ovaries release eggs to combine with sperm to generate more human beings. Male and female are required for this process to complete. I don't understand how this is a complex concept.

The fact that we can circumvent this process is another story entirely.

I didn't know that when I was peeing in reality I was ejaculating.


But I still don't understand what the heck has the sexual act with same sex marriages

 

[BobVB]

I am not debating whether or not sexual stimulation is pleasurable. I am trying to point out the reason why it is. The "why" is the reason for that organ to exist; it's "intended" purpose, as it were.

he fact that we can circumvent this process is another story entirely.

And so you have just clarified that you are deciding what things are 'intended' for when they, as you admit, have multiple other purposes.

Its just hubris to think you know what something as complex as sex is 'intended' for. Again, people who don't breed do it all the time it is obviously 'intended' for pleasure, pair-bonding reinforcement, socialization, giving good speeches.

Biological evolution is all about something that did one thing in the past being repurpose to something else - sex in higher social animals made that leap long long ago from mere breeding.

Sex is primarily for pleasure just by simple observation, that it does all these other great things is well, great, but just because you want to acknowledge one doesn't make any of the others go away.

 

[barmann]

It also follows that each time the male sex organ becomes tumescent, its owner must find a female sex organ to insert it into. Any other action is a perversion of the purpose of the erection.

I wonder if this will work as a a pick-up line ?

 

[likemyorbs]

I didn't know that when I was peeing in reality I was ejaculating.

Well now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

----------

Maybe the word "intended' is not accurate enough. Allow me to explain what I mean:

In a human male, sexual stimulation(usually) leads to an orgasm, which in turn produces a specific fluid. What is the "intended" purpose of said fluid? Why does an orgasm result in said fluid's expenditure? To what end does the body go to the process of expelling that particular fluid at that particular time?

So you're not into bukkake?

 

[inscrewtable]

Children have the right to parents that love them. I said this earlier in the thread, but I'll say it again. Can we stop focusing on who the parents are, and instead focus on how good they are?

I have two children - two healthy, happy, intelligent, loving children. They have plenty of male influences that surround them. 3 Grandfathers (though, one has since passed away), 2 uncles, many cousins, and many of my own friends.

Having 2 parents doesn't automatically equate into good parenting. Having a male influence doesn't autmotically equate into being a good influence. If Casey Anthony gets married and has another child, do you honestly believe that her kids are better off than mine? That's one example, of course - but raising children isn't something that should be generalized. And there are a million examples of bad parenting coming from heterosexual families. There are also a million examples of children being hurt by divorce. Why not campaign against divorce?

----------



In the November elections, all 4 states that had it on the ballot voted for it.

Times, they are a changing....

It would be nice if you could not talk in clichés.

How do you define a "good" parent.

I'm not insecure. How you can attain that through what I wrote is beyond me. Perhaps having to be in a forum writing pretentious posts makes you the insecure one. Or the fact that you can not know anything about me whatsoever and conclude that I'm insecure through an unrelated forum post is really just a reflection of how you feel about yourself. Also, It's not just myself who called you out. You're impressing no one.

I did not say you were insecure did I? I choose my words carefully. If I actually called you 'insecure' that would simply be the type of ad hominem insult that I asked people to try and avoid.

 

[APlotdevice]

You know all these arguments about what is "natural" seem to be ignoring the fact that marriage isn't. In nature animals will mate and then be on their way. Forming long, deep relationships is pretty much a human thing.

 

[Moyank24]

It would be nice if you could not talk in clichés.

How do you define a "good" parent.
.

How would you define a good parent?

My point was that what's the point of having a male & female parent if they aren't good role models? If they don't provide care and love for their children?

Children have the right to a parent or parents that love them. Whether that's a man/woman, 2 men, 2 women, 1 woman, or 1 man. I'm in favor of surrounding your children with good role models, no matter the number or sex of your parents.

I'd also say (since you ignored everything else i responded to), that I invite you to try and tell my children that I've made an "unhealthy psychological choice".

And frankly, if you have children, you aren't being a good role model to them if you believe in telling them they shouldn't "condone" things and people that are different than they are.

 

[doelcm82]

You know all these arguments about what is "natural" seem to be ignoring the fact that marriage isn't. In nature animals will mate and then be on their way. Forming long, deep relationships is pretty much a human thing.

Humans are not the only ones who do this. Swans do it, for example. Sometimes such Cygnean pair-bonding is even same-sex.

 

[melendezest]

It always surprises me that people don't understand what marriage is - it is just the registering of a legal familial relationship, that of spouse. Just like you can adopt a child you can marry a spouse. And all states have various things they automatically do and consider between spouses, just as they do with children and their parents. Your examples are all things that even non-spouses can establish but it misses the issue - talking about them is like talking about religion as the drive to church on Sunday.

Does the state legally register citizens and their husband or wife or not? If they do then it should for all citizens. Whatever that then leads to as far as promises and assumptions differs from state to state. Its the establishing a legal spousal relationship that is the core issue.

OK. Let me further explain my original process:

I use the biological attributes of human sexual behavior to then frame the "moral" issue of same gender marriage. Since "right" and "wrong" are highly subjective, I was attempting to mitigate those variables through the use of "primary bio-function" of sexual activity.

If the reproductive organs are for, well, reproduction, then any behavior that impedes it is deviance. Homosexual relationships are in direct contravention to human reproduction. Period. It is impossible for two same gender humans to reproduce (although technology has allowed us to bypass this, it still is deviating from the "intended" system design). So, we can use this as a basis for the moral implications of said behavior. Should a homosexual relationship be allowed to adopt children (a civil issue)? You are choosing to not engage in sexual behavior that facilitates reproduction! This is a consequence of deviance. But now we are saying, well, some hetero couples cannot have children (due to a system malfunction, not a behavioral choice, impetus, or whatever), so it should be okay for anyone to get a kid (even sexual deviants).

So now we have to determine which sexual deviants can and should be allowed to have children.

In other words, the sexual deviance leads to moral issues which lead to civil issues, etc, etc.

I feel that the focus of this issue has been backwards: were addressing civil issues, by arguing about it's morals, without looking at the root of the issue: it is not normal (from a design standpoint, not from a popularity standpoint) for a person to be sexually attracted to someone of the same gender. This is sexual deviance. Aside from hermaphrodites, this is a psychological issue (in the brain). I believe we do not fully understand why it occurs. But today, we're not even trying to. Which I find has been having a cascading effect into the moral and civil issues.

----------

I didn't know that when I was peeing in reality I was ejaculating.


But I still don't understand what the heck has the sexual act with same sex marriages

You pee when you have orgasms? Time to see a doctor...

 

[yg17]

Hmm. Seems pretty obvious to me. Marriage and sex are intertwined. To separate them is ridiculous. You can have sex without marriage, but I find the notion of marriage without sex unrealistic. Therefore, to speak of same gender marriage is to thus speak of a sexually deviant relationship.

Indeed, and gay couples are going to have gay sex whether or not they can get gay married, so why not just let them get married and give them all of the legal and financial benefits of marriage?