So you "honestly feel like they love each other" but you know better than they do. Is that it? What an offensive comment.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Issues Statement in Support of Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
So you "honestly feel like they love each other" but you know better than they do. Is that it? What an offensive comment.
Tolerance?
Doesn't look like tolerance to me. "Agree with me or cease living"...hmmm....yep, was done before. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro. The list is endless.
You sound just like I always imagine Daily Mail readers. You sound so bitter and spiteful and downright bigoted, blinded by your own hatred, that makes you a very sad person IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim Cook (an openly gay man) is the CEO of Apple and you seriously expect Apple to not give an opinion under his control? Heck, next you'll be telling me to not expect new fashionable shaped Mac Pros (even if Pros don't want fashion, but function with PCI slots), totally new colorful GUI colors for iOS, even thinner and smaller more purse sized iPads and red colored iPhones (that donate money to causes for AIDS research) from Apple either.
Most of the comments I see in regards to religions are by people that haven't read the Bible or don't understand it. It says little of what many people claim it does and what it does say has to be taken in context of the rest of the books of the Bible even so. That doesn't even address the question of the validity of those particular books versus other ones that weren't chosen to be included in the Bible, let alone other religions that have different beliefs altogether (and I personally believe in respecting everyone's rights so long as they don't violate my own or others in the process).
I've read the Bible over a half dozen times and three different translations thereof. The only time homosexuality is mentioned is in Leviticus (and later perhaps by Paul, but Paul contradicts other books in the New Testament and seems to be asexual anyway and clearly believed that the Messiah was coming back in his own lifetime as well). In any case, later on the next page in Leviticus it says that eating pork and shrimp is ALSO a sin. In fact, I recall reading those food items being brought up again and again (much more often than homosexuality). But I don't see many Christians just saying NO to bacon or sausage sandwiches or holding back on the shrimp cocktails either. Why is that? Could it be that the New Testament makes it quite clear that gentiles (i.e. non-Israelites, specifically non-Jews by that time period) are NOT required to follow ANY of the Mosaic Laws (and Leviticus is entirely Mosaic Law; only the Ten Commandments are supposed to be directly from God or Jesus wouldn't have personally addressed the issue of DIVORCE (which Leviticus makes OK with a simple paper, but Jesus said was never meant to be allowed with a possible exception in the case of fornication/adultery by one of the parties) and HENCE, Jesus himself set a precedent against Mosaic Law being ACCURATE to God's Law, which is obviously a LOT more important than what Moses thought.
Hence, that is all the information I need to conclude that Leviticus is a book written by a MAN and therefore, like everything man does is flawed. Given Jesus' absolute silence on the issue (obviously not important enough for him to bring it up even ONE time), I therefore cannot conclude that God has any actual law against homosexuality. Unlike some that think the "Bible" is flawless and written by God through man, I cannot conclude as much having actually read it multiple times and noticed numerous contradictions, especially in the Old Testament versus New.
The Bible, by the way, is a collection of books, not a single book and those books were chosen purposely by the early Catholic Church to push their hierarchical patriarchy as a form of GOVERNMENT. This means that they chose the books that supported the type of authoritarian system they wanted to have and rejected those that promoted other ideas (e.g. Gnostic Christians believed in gender equality and democratic forms of government and encouraged direct interaction with God, not talking to some intermediary like a Cardinal or Bishop or even the Pope). These same ideas were then later used to kill, murder and torture people over the years (Spanish Inquisition, witch trials and other barbarism that is NOT supported by ANYTHING Jesus taught) and so I have to question the actual motives and authority of the Catholic Church in even choosing the books they chose. They obviously could not block everything and the reason Jesus taught in parables was so that they would NOT just delete everything he taught and so the truth is still in the New Testament, but clearly not obvious enough for some people even today that it's available in plain modern English and a variety of other languages (when it was once limited to Latin and perhaps the original Greek and Hebrew in some cases).
And even IF homosexuality were correctly portrayed as a sin, then so is eating a pork chop or having lobster. But you don't see people protesting eating pork (well maybe a group like Peta or something), but they sure do like to condemn the homosexuals. But I believe that is because they find it unappealing/gross/disgusting and having been given the genetic or soul attraction to the opposite sex themselves, they simply do not seem to comprehend that others might be naturally attracted to their own gender or even have any attraction to any gender (I saw those asexual types tormented in high school as well for not showing interest in girls). But Jesus taught to forgive one's brother or God will not forgive you. So even if you disagree with someone's actions, you should not be condemning them and yet that is exactly what I see from many of these "Christian" groups. They point out the splinter in everyone else's eyes while ignoring the giant timber in their own.
I personally believe it ALL comes down to the intolerance of man against things he personally doesn't like. And those with power tend to push their beliefs on others (religions in general love to do this seeing as they believe "their" way is the only "right" way and therefore they believe they SHOULD cram it down your throat for your own good even and often kill those that don't agree (e.g. Extremist groups in Islam and Christianity in the Middle Ages). But you also see it in everything, really. People who are for gun control typically don't want to be around people that are against gun control. Republicans hate Democrats vice versa. Abortion rights versus those that think it's murder, etc. etc. etc. I could go on all day. Basically, people don't like other people that think or act differently than them. This comes from EGO (i.e. I'm more important than everyone else and am the center of the Universe).
EGO I believe is what is called "Satan" or "The Dragon" in the Bible and elsewhere. It's that individuality that says one is more important than everyone else around them. It drives ALL evil and ALL sin. The first two Commandments from God are the polar opposites to Ego. The idea that your first duties are to LOVE God and everyone around you as yourself. If you do that, you do NOT let Ego control your actions and passions. No mythical angelic being is needed to fill this "devil" role. It is symbol of man's desire to be God. But God is not about self. God is about selflessness and that is where man errs.
All this ridiculous fighting in the world over supporting this or supporting that or this church being "dead" and this one "alive" and everything under the sun comes down to EGO. And personally, I have seen very VERY few in this world obey the first and second commandments given to them. Jesus taught to NOT JUDGE lest you be judged by the standards of your own (flawed) judgment. He taught to forgive one's brother thousands of times over. NOWHERE did I see him say to judge people, shun people, make laws against people, etc. because they think differently. God gave people FREE WILL and if free will is that important to God, who the hell is the person that thinks his own will is greater? And yet you see it every day....
My point is simply this. ALL people are supposed to be viewed as created equal in the United States. We all know that we fail to live up to the principle, but it's the goal we're supposed to aim for. And whether one believes that because we believe it "under God" or because we simply see that what body your born into is not within your control, it really shouldn't matter. The Golden Rule of treating others as you'd have them treat you should be on everyone's mind, regardless of belief because ultimately, the alternative is to let anyone and everyone do anything they want to you and I personally don't like that alternative. If gay people want equal rights under law, they should have them, not because you agree with their lifestyle, but because you would want equal rights in their place too. It is God's job to judge, not your own. If they're not hurting anyone (and I've never seen any indication that homosexuality is anything but genetic like anything else like preference of hair color, brussel sprouts or whatever), then their rights should not be denied under law. I cannot think of many other situations where "mutually loving someone" (and no I don't mean rape, incest, etc.) has been portrayed akin to a crime. As far as I know, souls don't have genders and I don't believe God does either seeing as he's greater than any human body and created gender in the first place (with Atheists, it's even simpler since it's all genetics and there's little room for argument).
So reproduction is a requirement to be a couple or a married couple? Does that mean men or women born barren/sterile should not be allowed to get married even to the opposite gender? Does that mean women that have reached menopause should not be allowed to marry? If someone marries and is found to not have children after a certain time should their marriage be annulled? In short, your argument is ridiculous. It provides no reason why a marriage certificate under law (no one is forcing a church to marry people) should be denied to someone. Marriage is about legal benefits, not just having children. Adoption is a good way to keep kids from being raised by the state, in any case (even a single parent is better than NO parent).
LOL, you're so predictable.
Looks at content of posts. Looks at location.
Ah.
Here's the difference between our viewpoints:
-I think religion (and your consequent "morality") is man-made. I can make fun of you and try to dissuade you from believing in such malarkey, but I'd never try to prevent you from being legally permitted to believe it (so long as it doesn't unduly infringe on other citizens' basics rights).
-You not only "disagree" with same-sex marriage (I still have yet to understand how someone can disagree with something like this...you're not being forced to marry someone your same gender), but then you want to take the extra step of having your opinion legislated.
Before you say same-sex marriage is illegal and it has to be legislated to be made legal (and thus on par with my first hyphenated point), please try to think of why that statement would not hold up. Hint: has to do with rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
my god
hopefully it's about gay marriage this time
but what if tomorrow companies start to give opinions about death penalty ?
Please show us where anyone has tried to silence religion (in places other than gov't buildings, public schools, gov't property).
Are you aware of the concept "protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority?" Besides, the court rules on the constitutionality of things.
They have been supporting legislation to deny civil rights, both emotionally and financially for years.
The Prop 8 campaign was funded by both the Catholic Church and LDS. Their support was a huge reason it passed in California.
A slightly weighted list, I feel. There are plenty of devout men of [insert name of random deity] who have felt this way.
A MagnusVonMagnum magnum opusTim Cook (an openly gay man) is the CEO of Apple and you seriously expect Apple to not give an opinion under his control? Heck, next you'll be telling me to not expect new fashionable shaped Mac Pros (even if Pros don't want fashion, but function with PCI slots), totally new colorful GUI colors for iOS, even thinner and smaller more purse sized iPads and red colored iPhones (that donate money to causes for AIDS research) from Apple either.
Most of the comments I see in regards to religions are by people that haven't read the Bible or don't understand it. It says little of what many people claim it does and what it does say has to be taken in context of the rest of the books of the Bible even so. That doesn't even address the question of the validity of those particular books versus other ones that weren't chosen to be included in the Bible, let alone other religions that have different beliefs altogether (and I personally believe in respecting everyone's rights so long as they don't violate my own or others in the process).
I've read the Bible over a half dozen times and three different translations thereof. The only time homosexuality is mentioned is in Leviticus (and later perhaps by Paul, but Paul contradicts other books in the New Testament and seems to be asexual anyway and clearly believed that the Messiah was coming back in his own lifetime as well). In any case, later on the next page in Leviticus it says that eating pork and shrimp is ALSO a sin. In fact, I recall reading those food items being brought up again and again (much more often than homosexuality). But I don't see many Christians just saying NO to bacon or sausage sandwiches or holding back on the shrimp cocktails either. Why is that? Could it be that the New Testament makes it quite clear that gentiles (i.e. non-Israelites, specifically non-Jews by that time period) are NOT required to follow ANY of the Mosaic Laws (and Leviticus is entirely Mosaic Law; only the Ten Commandments are supposed to be directly from God or Jesus wouldn't have personally addressed the issue of DIVORCE (which Leviticus makes OK with a simple paper, but Jesus said was never meant to be allowed with a possible exception in the case of fornication/adultery by one of the parties) and HENCE, Jesus himself set a precedent against Mosaic Law being ACCURATE to God's Law, which is obviously a LOT more important than what Moses thought.
Hence, that is all the information I need to conclude that Leviticus is a book written by a MAN and therefore, like everything man does is flawed. Given Jesus' absolute silence on the issue (obviously not important enough for him to bring it up even ONE time), I therefore cannot conclude that God has any actual law against homosexuality. Unlike some that think the "Bible" is flawless and written by God through man, I cannot conclude as much having actually read it multiple times and noticed numerous contradictions, especially in the Old Testament versus New.
The Bible, by the way, is a collection of books, not a single book and those books were chosen purposely by the early Catholic Church to push their hierarchical patriarchy as a form of GOVERNMENT. This means that they chose the books that supported the type of authoritarian system they wanted to have and rejected those that promoted other ideas (e.g. Gnostic Christians believed in gender equality and democratic forms of government and encouraged direct interaction with God, not talking to some intermediary like a Cardinal or Bishop or even the Pope). These same ideas were then later used to kill, murder and torture people over the years (Spanish Inquisition, witch trials and other barbarism that is NOT supported by ANYTHING Jesus taught) and so I have to question the actual motives and authority of the Catholic Church in even choosing the books they chose. They obviously could not block everything and the reason Jesus taught in parables was so that they would NOT just delete everything he taught and so the truth is still in the New Testament, but clearly not obvious enough for some people even today that it's available in plain modern English and a variety of other languages (when it was once limited to Latin and perhaps the original Greek and Hebrew in some cases).
And even IF homosexuality were correctly portrayed as a sin, then so is eating a pork chop or having lobster. But you don't see people protesting eating pork (well maybe a group like Peta or something), but they sure do like to condemn the homosexuals. But I believe that is because they find it unappealing/gross/disgusting and having been given the genetic or soul attraction to the opposite sex themselves, they simply do not seem to comprehend that others might be naturally attracted to their own gender or even have any attraction to any gender (I saw those asexual types tormented in high school as well for not showing interest in girls). But Jesus taught to forgive one's brother or God will not forgive you. So even if you disagree with someone's actions, you should not be condemning them and yet that is exactly what I see from many of these "Christian" groups. They point out the splinter in everyone else's eyes while ignoring the giant timber in their own.
I personally believe it ALL comes down to the intolerance of man against things he personally doesn't like. And those with power tend to push their beliefs on others (religions in general love to do this seeing as they believe "their" way is the only "right" way and therefore they believe they SHOULD cram it down your throat for your own good even and often kill those that don't agree (e.g. Extremist groups in Islam and Christianity in the Middle Ages). But you also see it in everything, really. People who are for gun control typically don't want to be around people that are against gun control. Republicans hate Democrats vice versa. Abortion rights versus those that think it's murder, etc. etc. etc. I could go on all day. Basically, people don't like other people that think or act differently than them. This comes from EGO (i.e. I'm more important than everyone else and am the center of the Universe).
EGO I believe is what is called "Satan" or "The Dragon" in the Bible and elsewhere. It's that individuality that says one is more important than everyone else around them. It drives ALL evil and ALL sin. The first two Commandments from God are the polar opposites to Ego. The idea that your first duties are to LOVE God and everyone around you as yourself. If you do that, you do NOT let Ego control your actions and passions. No mythical angelic being is needed to fill this "devil" role. It is symbol of man's desire to be God. But God is not about self. God is about selflessness and that is where man errs.
All this ridiculous fighting in the world over supporting this or supporting that or this church being "dead" and this one "alive" and everything under the sun comes down to EGO. And personally, I have seen very VERY few in this world obey the first and second commandments given to them. Jesus taught to NOT JUDGE lest you be judged by the standards of your own (flawed) judgment. He taught to forgive one's brother thousands of times over. NOWHERE did I see him say to judge people, shun people, make laws against people, etc. because they think differently. God gave people FREE WILL and if free will is that important to God, who the hell is the person that thinks his own will is greater? And yet you see it every day....
My point is simply this. ALL people are supposed to be viewed as created equal in the United States. We all know that we fail to live up to the principle, but it's the goal we're supposed to aim for. And whether one believes that because we believe it "under God" or because we simply see that what body your born into is not within your control, it really shouldn't matter. The Golden Rule of treating others as you'd have them treat you should be on everyone's mind, regardless of belief because ultimately, the alternative is to let anyone and everyone do anything they want to you and I personally don't like that alternative. If gay people want equal rights under law, they should have them, not because you agree with their lifestyle, but because you would want equal rights in their place too. It is God's job to judge, not your own. If they're not hurting anyone (and I've never seen any indication that homosexuality is anything but genetic like anything else like preference of hair color, brussel sprouts or whatever), then their rights should not be denied under law. I cannot think of many other situations where "mutually loving someone" (and no I don't mean rape, incest, etc.) has been portrayed akin to a crime. As far as I know, souls don't have genders and I don't believe God does either seeing as he's greater than any human body and created gender in the first place (with Atheists, it's even simpler since it's all genetics and there's little room for argument).
So reproduction is a requirement to be a couple or a married couple? Does that mean men or women born barren/sterile should not be allowed to get married even to the opposite gender? Does that mean women that have reached menopause should not be allowed to marry? If someone marries and is found to not have children after a certain time should their marriage be annulled? In short, your argument is ridiculous. It provides no reason why a marriage certificate under law (no one is forcing a church to marry people) should be denied to someone. Marriage is about legal benefits, not just having children. Adoption is a good way to keep kids from being raised by the state, in any case (even a single parent is better than NO parent).
All due respect, but you don't know a bloody thing about what you are saying here.
They didn't overrule anybody. The plaintiffs didn't even have standing to present the case to them. So SCOTUS pretty much said "You don't have reason to be here, get off our lawn!", and let the previous court's ruling stand. That ruling was that when applied against the 14th Amendment, this ban (passed by the majority) impedes on the rights of the minority. That is wrong, and must be thrown out.
The government is also supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And unless you've had your head stuck in the ground like an ostrich or emu for the past 4 years, you'll notice that the majority has shifted to SUPPORTING gay marriage in California, not banning it.
But since you're not from California, you wouldn't know that. So please. Keep your "will of the people/legislating from the bench" bollocks restricted to the comments page on Faux News. It doesn't belong here.
BL.
but what if tomorrow companies start to give opinions about death penalty ?
Our prisions would be less populated.
That's fine with me if that's the way it comes across. I don't say I believe something else just so everyone smiles at me.
I just wanted to make it clear that not everyone posting here is part of that group. Some of us are actually Apple customers who normally get way more excited about the next Apple product than the next election, however today I couldn't be happier with what has transpired and with Apple's support for it.
In twenty years we will look back and find it hard to believe gay marriage was ever illegal. This is overdue.
Technically, you should neither make fun of him, dissuade him, or belittle his believes.
That's really my only problem with many on the forums.
Supporting legislation does not equal withholding rights.
That's like saying, white people kill blacks, knowing full well the KKK kills blacks.
Fair enough. I suppose chopping people's foreskins off is slightly barbaric... But at the same time, the parents have the right to raise their kids however they choose, and while it's certainly a disgusting practice (you should see the crowd at a bris... The women smile, the men look uncomfortable. It's quite unsettling.), it's also protected as a religious practice, which is the point of freedom of religion.
You have to love American education. Were you not taught that the SC rules on the constitutionality of laws, not whether to overturn voters or legislatures?
With regard to Prop8, they ruled on nothing. Get your facts straight.
Daily Mail? LOL. I read The Guardian thank you.
Last time I checked I lived in a democracy with free speech. The gay lobby is always on the TV, marching through the streets and jumping on any bandwagon they can find to promote their views. And if you say anything against them suddenly you're homophobic or bigoted. No I just don't agree with them. I don't agree with gay marriage. Just my view.
Thats a stupid reason.
So you're saying ALL couples reproduce?
Are you also saying that gay couples can't adopt the thousands of children in halfway houses and orphanages?
Not to mention by your logic anything that isn't involved in reproducing should be illegal...so...
Maybe you should read up a little more on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), in particular, before you go any further.
----------
There is usually nothing very sudden about it.
So, YOU shouldn't marry a man. Problem solved!!! Aren't you happy I figured it out for you?
- Status