Apple and Other Companies Push Forward in Fight for Marriage Equality

[Gasu E.]

You know exactly what he was talking about and now you're splitting hairs for the sake of arguing.

Are you going to answer the question or not? I'm guessing no. You are an apologist "atheist". Whatever that means.

This is just passive aggressive. Why don't you restate the question you want answered? The guy doesn't think the question made sense, and I agree. If you want a question answered, ask it yourself. But, you really don't dare do that, do you? :roll eyes:

ASK THE QUESTION YOURSELF. Without references, indirection, and all the evasion. State a simple, direct, self-contained question, as anyone with a backbone would. Make it clear what you are asking.

I bet you can't. But I'd be delighted to lose that bet.

----------

Let me hold your hand since you're trying to be difficult.

"You'd never say THAT about Islam". What is THAT? State what THAT is.

 

[haxrnick]

WHAT? WOULD I SAY WHAT ABOUT ISLAM?

His question makes no effing sense since I said NOTHING about Christianity. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

You are just doing this for the sake of arguing. It's been repeated and now I'm done. You can only lead a horse to water.

 

[Gasu E.]

See my above comment. I didn't not mean to imply that Islam is evil, it was more the idea of invoking extreme hyperbole, which seeing your comment I misread. Again, accept my apology for my reading comprehension fail.

LOL, I'm playing with you a bit. But I didn't like the comparison with Godwin/Nazi. We're good. I appreciate the effort you have put into your posts. Firm in your beliefs but not closed-minded. I can respect that.

 

[yg17]

You are just doing this for the sake of arguing. It's been repeated and now I'm done. You can only lead a horse to water.

I'm done here. If you can't specify what THAT is, then I can't answer your goddamn question.

 

[Gasu E.]

You are just doing this for the sake of arguing. It's been repeated and now I'm done. You can only lead a horse to water.

Passive aggressive. Afraid to put yourself out there and expose yourself to criticism. Afraid to make simple, straightforward declarations. Really, nothing to respect here. But thanks for being done.

 

[haxrnick]

Passive aggressive. Afraid to put yourself out there and expose yourself to criticism. Afraid to make simple, straightforward declarations. Really, nothing to respect here. But thanks for being done.

Why do you have a hard-on for me? I'm not even talking to you, yet you keep quoting me and blowing up my tapatalk notifications.

 

[mudslag]

I find that un-compelling. What about couples that simply live together? There's is plenty of that going on and it doesn't seem like it's brought our legal system to a halt. In fact, I believe if it were left to churches to deal with marriage and divorce issues, they could work out disputes better than the courts. And many people have prenuptial agreements even with marriage, so why couldn't people be trusted to work out their own problems. Oh, that's right. We're all stupid and we need the paternal government to protect us against our own ignorance and incompetence.

1. Churches dont own marriage nor can churches make legal arrangements. Plus there is zero reason to think they could work out disputes better then the courts.

2. From a legal perspective people can work out their own disputes but more often then not, they can't come to agreement on their own and most of those disputes revolve around legal points. Being legal issues means that it involves gov whos job it is, is to back the legal aspects.


If you bothered to understand what marriage legally covers, used understand your comment makes no sense.

 

[TheHateMachine]

Why do you have a hard-on for me? I'm not even talking to you, yet you keep quoting me and blowing up my tapatalk notifications.

If you didn't want others to pick up your conversation on a public forum maybe you should have just private messaged the guy you really wanted to talk to.

That or he has a hard-on for pointing out internet silliness.

 

[69650]

I'm sorry, this is a thread for anti-gay bigots; not Anti-Semites. Your hate is off-topic.

Yawn. Presumably anyone who disagrees with the politically correct viewpoint is a bigot in your eyes. Personally I'm in favour of free speech not dictatorships. It's not my problem if some people can't handle that.

----------

Apparently you didn't take time to read the article. Go back and read it and you'll see that the brief they filed lists a number of substantial impacts that not having a national stance on gay marriage has no businesses. You might not agree, but these companies are not fighting on moral principles, it's simply business.

Edit: yg17 hit enter before me.

How does a ban on gay marriage affect Apple's business? That's just ridiculous. It's do gooders sticking their noses in to a political debate. Nobody elected Cook to speak on political issues. He should just shut up and get on with his day job. You know the one he's paid millions of dollars to do.

----------

Someone obviously didn't read the article:

Quote:
The patchwork of inconsistent state marriage laws makes it challenging and more costly for employers to administer benefits systems when some employees are unable to marry, and other employees' marriages are not recognized by the state. This burdens businesses by costing them both time and money.

What a feeble argument. How do they possibly manage to administer all the different employment laws in all the countries they operate in. What a terrible burden that must be for the worlds richest and most profitable company.

 

[Meister]

It's sad when human rights can only be talked about in secluded areas (like on these forums).

What makes you think such a thing?

----------

Says the guy with the offensive signature. You'd never say that about Islam, would you?

I just noticed that he really does have an offensive signature

 

[Renzatic]

I just noticed that he really does have an offensive signature

Man, you people are overly sensitive.

 

[PowerBook-G5]

Time to go get the popcorn, pro marriage equality threads on the front page always seem to attract the nuts.

I guess with Apple, Microsoft and Google all supporting marriage equality, the bigots who refuse to support companies who support equality will have to get rid of their phones and computers. Their stone age technology will go great with their stone age beliefs.

While I don't agree with your political views, I enjoy your signature. I laughed. And it seems that your signature brings out the nuts

Man, you people are overly sensitive.

FINALLY, SOMEONE WITH SOME SENSE!


Hey guys, there's an Apple event on Monday! Let's discuss that instead of yg17's signature.

 

[Nunyabinez]

1. Churches dont own marriage nor can churches make legal arrangements. Plus there is zero reason to think they could work out disputes better then the courts.

2. From a legal perspective people can work out their own disputes but more often then not, they can't come to agreement on their own and most of those disputes revolve around legal points. Being legal issues means that it involves gov whos job it is, is to back the legal aspects.


If you bothered to understand what marriage legally covers, used understand your comment makes no sense.

No, it makes perfect sense, you just don't understand any of the arguments that have been made. In fact you are so wrong that I don't have the time nor desire to rehash the arguments for why government should not be in the marriage business at all.

 

[batchtaster]

The real mistake was for governments to get involved in marriage in the first place. If government hadn't given special privileges to couples who contracted with the state to be together we wouldn't have all these stupid arguments and gay people could get married in their church that supported that and straight people could get married in churches that supported that. And atheists would just decide to be together. The state would treat them all the same; as individuals. Certainly today there is no compelling reason for the government to be involved.

If it was left to religion, then there would be no marriage equality. Marriage is inherently a civil matter - you can get married without religious involvement (secular wedding), but you cannot get married without the approval of the state. Those child-bride weddings in cults are illegal, even if they're sanctioned by the religion.

Religious organisations have been delegated the power to act on the state's behalf, in order to integrate the couple's beliefs into the ceremony (remember "by the power invested in me by the state of Somewhere"), but are not the only ones, and do not have ownership of the marriage process (which is why religious arguments against equality are just plain invalid).

If you want to separate religious unions from any state sanctioning, then I'm down with that. We'll call the civil ones "marriage" (as they are today) and the religion-only ones something else ("Godly Unions" or something). The government will therefore give legal, tax and financial recognition only to the civil-only marriages, since the government is the civil body. The religious organisations can give their religion-only unions whatever benefits they have available to them. Holy water and crackers, I guess.

Handing marriage over to religion scares the living crap out of me. The old ridiculous chestnut of "if gays can marry, then it's a slippery slope until people are marrying children, animals or inanimate objects" is avoided by the requirement for the participants to have legal standing to agree to a contract with informed consent - animals, children and inanimate objects cannot agree to a contract. But put religion solely in charge of marriage, remove the civil requirement for legal consent and agreement, and it comes down to what that belief system feels is okay. Such as:

So, you want freaky, sick unions that do not require legal consent? Then by all means take the state out of it.

 

[Happybunny]

----------

I just noticed that he really does have an offensive signature

I have looked at that signature, thought about it, and if you find that offensive, well I can't see why?

All I can say is your daily life must be hell.

 

[samiwas]

I find that un-compelling. What about couples that simply live together? There's is plenty of that going on and it doesn't seem like it's brought our legal system to a halt. In fact, I believe if it were left to churches to deal with marriage and divorce issues, they could work out disputes better than the courts. And many people have prenuptial agreements even with marriage, so why couldn't people be trusted to work out their own problems. Oh, that's right. We're all stupid and we need the paternal government to protect us against our own ignorance and incompetence.

Several problems with your "solution".

What happens when one party refuses to follow the church's "orders" in the divorce or separation? What then?

If marriage belongs to churches, then can non-religious people not get married and have any standing as such?

Which churches get to decide the "rules"? How are medical visitation and decision rights made?

It has nothing to do with being stupid. You are aware that there are extremely messy and bitter divorces, right? And that no, those people won't simply sit down with a church advisor and come to a happy agreement. You are delusional if you believe that.

Why not just move to a state that supports your alternative lifestyle. You're a prime example of not wanting to change things but to force people to accept your lifestyle. I'm sure you'll disagree and that's just fine with me.

So, you are against the idea of the United States, and would rather have a fractured system of different beliefs and rules? Sounds like a plan.

Why do I have to accept someone's religious beliefs, huh? Why should I have to follow a church's rules? No one is forcing you to accept someone else's lifestyle. However, that has nothing to do with allowing them to have it. Especially when it doesn't affect you one bit.

Comparing it to living in a violent ghetto is pointless, as always. Last time I checked, allowing people to have a gay marriage won't suddenly make people try to gay marry you. Name ONE way in which gay marriage would actually affect your life.

 

[mudslag]

No, it makes perfect sense, you just don't understand any of the arguments that have been made. In fact you are so wrong that I don't have the time nor desire to rehash the arguments for why government should not be in the marriage business at all.

First off you have yet to explain how any of what you suggested would remotely work. You've made a claim, that's it but you did not add anything supporting those claims. Nor did you bother to dispute the points I raised.

Explain how the churches would deal with the legal aspects of marriage and divorce? What churches would be allowed to do this? All or select group/view?What about non religious marriages? Exactly what legal powers should they have? Do the churches define the benefits or do we stick to current gov created one? Also explain why the churches are better suited to handle this over the courts?

As for the other claim that people should be able to deal with the problems on their own. As I stated, people are more then welcome to handle their problems on their own, there are people and issues regarding marriages that legal aspects are attached to marriage for legitimate reasons. Reading the list of legal benefits and protections that come with marriage, it can only be done through gov intervention, hence what makes it legal.

You have to actually make an argument for something, just saying we should do "X" isn't an argument it's a baseless subjective view with no supportive evidence to back it up. If it's not worth the time to explain it, then it's prob not that great of an idea to begin with.

 

[Meister]

I have looked at that signature, thought about it, and if you find that offensive, well I can't see why?

All I can say is your daily life must be hell.

I suspect you are confusing "being offensive" and "being offended".

From a christian viewpoint his post is offensive. I myself am never offended.

 

[Renzatic]

From a christian viewpoint his post is offensive. I myself am never offended.

Not really. Jesus was a foreigner, pretty brown skinned, all about free healthcare, and helping the poor.

 

[Happybunny]

Not really. Jesus was a foreigner, pretty brown skinned, all about free healthcare, and helping the poor.

But I would imagine that the owners of those MEGA churches, just love that description.

 

[Renzatic]

But I would imagine that the owners of those MEGA churches, just love that description.

Oh, our displaced European who art in heaven, the free market be thy game.

 

[the8thark]

What makes you think such a thing?

The fact that even the slightest mention of the word gay or anything even slightly LGBT is moved to PRSI and is not allowed in the general part of the forums.

There are other reasons too but this is the main one that applies to this forum.

 

[Digital Skunk]

...The problem was the location was in the ghetto and being white I was not welcomed there at all....

I didn't know that Jews felt that way about white people.

That sucks bro.

lol

Agreed!

The fact that even the slightest mention of the word gay or anything even slightly LGBT is moved to PRSI and is not allowed in the general part of the forums.

There are other reasons too but this is the main one that applies to this forum.

Or anything that has to do with social issues really. I was upset about the emoticon story ending up in PSRI . . . . . . . like a brown skinned bitmap draws that much fire.

I'm more surprised to have read this entire thread, and have read posts on everything that's a hot button issues in the world today except gun rights, marijuana, the Ukraine, and police brutality.

How does Apple supports LGBT rights, turn into a thread about calling Jesus a black man is offensive?

 

[thekev]

No, it makes perfect sense, you just don't understand any of the arguments that have been made. In fact you are so wrong that I don't have the time nor desire to rehash the arguments for why government should not be in the marriage business at all.

That would work fine if it was only ceremonial. Otherwise religion should stay out of marriage.

I'll just leave this here, because it makes me laugh.

 

[0098386]

Non-US member here.
Saw an interview with some judge (I think) from Alabama on BBC News, talking about being "on the right side of history" by blocking gay marriage. I wept inside.