Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Oct 2008 19:26 UTC, submitted by SK8T
In the News In a rather unusual move, both Google and Apple have publicly backed the fight against "Proposition 8", both by words as well as by donation. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Both companies gave out their reasoning for supporting the fight against 'Prop 8'.
Order by: Score:
Applause
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 25th Oct 2008 19:35 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I can do nothing but applaud these moves by Google and Apple. As someone who holds unconditional equality in the highest possible regard, the equality of all men is of the utmost importance. Whether you are black, white, or polka dot; whether you like boys, girls, or both; whether you believe in God, Allah, or the Cosmic Goat - we are all equal, and it is not the task of the state to tell people that they are not.

Nor the state, not the church define marriage - the people who marry do. I am proud that we in The Netherlands realised that as one of the first countries. We got the ball rolling, I hope Californians will give it another push.

Score: 11

RE: Applause
by jaduncan on Sat 25th Oct 2008 19:56 UTC in reply to "Applause"
jaduncan Member since:
2005-11-19

It is an issue of equality before the law, and the separation of church and state. We know that relationships are defined by mutual emotion, and that homosexual relationships can be and are equally emotive. It then behoves us to equally respect them. But then I'm posting from the UK, and we are still only on civil unions...

Score: 3

RE: Applause
by rexstuff on Sat 25th Oct 2008 20:11 UTC in reply to "Applause"
rexstuff Member since:
2007-04-06

I disagree. Whatever your views on proposition 8, it does not behoove any private company to weigh in on issues that are strictly social-political, if for no other reason than business sense. Google and Apple risk alienating both their customers and their employees. Sure, they might earn some good will from proponents of proposition 8, but not not as much as they would lose from its detractors. It's for the same reason that few companies will openly support a political candidate. Separation of church and state? What about separation of corporation and state?

It's simply not the role of a private business company, nor should it be.

Score: 11

RE[2]: Applause
by tyrione on Sat 25th Oct 2008 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Applause"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I disagree. Whatever your views on proposition 8, it does not behoove any private company to weigh in on issues that are strictly social-political, if for no other reason than business sense. Google and Apple risk alienating both their customers and their employees. Sure, they might earn some good will from proponents of proposition 8, but not not as much as they would lose from its detractors. It's for the same reason that few companies will openly support a political candidate. Separation of church and state? What about separation of corporation and state?

It's simply not the role of a private business company, nor should it be.


Private companies are not the problem. They are Publicly Traded Corporations that are extending beyond their business models and interests when doing so. Individuals of these corporations have every right to state their positions and fund them, within the boundaries of the law, but to take shareholder investment for a social cause that would require a proxy vote not within their business charter is definitely something that should be addressed by the Courts.

If people of any gender want to marry in misery or bliss [depends on one's personal experience(s)] so be it. To leverage lobbying from corporations to do so is no more responsible then lobbying for oil credits.

There are no `this is for a good cause and therefore inherently good' nor `that is for a bad cause so therefore inherently evil arguments' in this debate.

We keep rehashing basic fundamentals of the US Constitution as if the one millionth time we just might be able to convince ourselves of some hidden intention for this or that action.

The movement to ban gay marriage is equally futile and a waste of resources, time, attention and public policy energy.

Move marriage from the civil arena and let each belief system embrace whatever it may be and we wouldn't be in this mess.

Score: 3

RE[3]: Applause
by darknexus on Sat 25th Oct 2008 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Although I agree completely, I think you're wishing for something that won't happen. There are certain religions, and I think we all know which ones, that seem to believe it's their duty to force others to see things their way and to conform to their beliefs. As long as these religions are allowed to lobby for their own views--and they should be, no matter what anyone personally thinks of them--we will never have a conconsensuscensus on this issue and efforts to regulate or ban same sex marriages will persist.
I absolutely believe that we should, under no circumstances, prohibit any two people from marrying no matter what their sexual orientations. For that matter, I say if more than two people want to marry and are consenting to it we have no right to judge them or stop them. It's their life, not ours. I wish these crazy fundamentalist wackjobs would realize that and sink back into the woodworks where they belong and stop wasting our time and monetary effort to enforce their own twisted beliefs on the rest of us.
Bias warning: I'm very anti-religion, at least in the sense of organized religions.
On to the article, though... I'm very happy on a personal level that Apple and Google are speaking out against this. I do have to wonder, though, if a corporation has the right to expend monetary resources on political proceedings. Individuals certainly, large corporations... well, I don't think so. This is dangerous in its own way. I agree with others here who say this sets a dangerous precedent. This time it's gay marriage, next time it's... well, anything.

Score: 0

RE[4]: Applause
by DrillSgt on Sun 26th Oct 2008 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Individuals certainly, large corporations... well, I don't think so. This is dangerous in its own way. I agree with others here who say this sets a dangerous precedent. This time it's gay marriage, next time it's... well, anything."

Well, at least here in the US it has been going on like that ..with corporations funding things..for at least 100 years maybe more. Part of politics unfortunately. Anymore it is about how much money a candidate can raise on whether they get elected or not..sad state of affairs.

Score: 2

RE[4]: Applause
by andrewg on Sun 26th Oct 2008 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

There are certain religions, and I think we all know which ones, that seem to believe it's their duty to force others to see things their way and to conform to their beliefs. As long as these religions are allowed to lobby for their own views--and they should be, no matter what anyone personally thinks of them--we will never have a conconsensuscensus on this issue and efforts to regulate or ban same sex marriages will persist.


The problem is there is no neutral position in this matter. Marriage is either something that is intrinsically a male and female partnership or it is not. One side will force its will onto the other. If same sex marriages are recognised then that side will have forced its definition of marriage onto the society as a whole if same sex marriages are not legal then that side will have its definition of marriage prevail on society.

Score: 2

RE[4]: Applause
by re_re on Sun 26th Oct 2008 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

>I wish these crazy fundamentalist wackjobs would realize that and sink back into the woodworks where they belong and stop wasting our time and monetary effort to enforce their own twisted beliefs on the rest of us. <

Or perhaps you are the one pushing your own twisted beliefs on the rest of us? ...

It's all a matter of perspective. You expect the religious to be tolerant of your views and to just stand back and keep their mouths shut, but you do not tolerate their views and voice yours.

I would venture to say these "fundamentalist wackjobs" are generally much more tolerant of the likes of you then you are of them.

Score: 3

RE[3]: Applause
by irbis on Sat 25th Oct 2008 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

Move marriage from the civil arena and let each belief system embrace whatever it may be and we wouldn't be in this mess.

I mostly agree on that. The various cultural interpretations of marriage have varied very much in history, in differing cultures and even in current societies that usually support cultural variety and freedom. Anyway, the subject is a very sensitive to almost everyone - even if they couldn't care less for marriage personally - as it deals with the most intimate human feelings. That explains why the same sex marriage is so hotly debated subject. Also, as marriage is usually governed by state laws too, it makes it more difficult to see it only as a cultural habit that various cultural groups could handle as they please and according to their own cultural values only.

Can commercial companies take part in political discussion on this kind of subjects? A difficult question. If there's democracy and freedom of speech, who's to stop them, and why should they even be prevented from doing that? Maybe it may at least be better if they do it openly than if they were secretly lobbying and giving money for some political goals and parties behind the scenes? There are other concerns too, however. As the primary goal of companies is their business, one may start to wonder how sincere such political side goals are and whether the companies may also be campaigning for such political goals in order to advertise themselves as more ethical companies and to turn people's attention away from some other maybe non-ethical practices of those companies (not talking about Apple or Google here, just on an abstract and general level)?

From those who want to ban some or another political party/opinion in this or that debate I'd like to ask: Wouldn't it be better to let every party take part in the free and democratic discussion and decision making instead of conservative, liberal or other kinds of censorship schemes (even as jokes) that restrict and not increase freedom and democracy?

It is indeed tempting to think that one's own opinions would always be the best, and that the other irritating people with differing opinions are always wrong and should be banned and silenced... But isn't that kind of arrogant attitude the very seed of dangerous totalitarianism and witch hunts? Others with differing opinions, though maybe wrong in some question, may sometimes have good points to bring to the discussion too that oneself may not have thought about. Democracy and freedom of speech forces even opposing parties to openly discuss and listen to each other which is usually only good for political decision making.

Score: 2

RE[3]: Applause
by Ressev on Sun 26th Oct 2008 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

The movement to ban gay marriage is equally futile and a waste of resources, time, attention and public policy energy.

Move marriage from the civil arena and let each belief system embrace whatever it may be and we wouldn't be in this mess.


Better would have been for the civil branch to create something akin to marriage legally and taxation wise, but simply not call it marriage, which you indirectly acknowledge as religious as well as civil. Civil Unions are the best course for that action.

However, that people were not content with Civil Unions points out that the goal is not civil recognition but religious recognition.

Score: 1

RE[4]: Applause
by tweakedenigma on Sun 26th Oct 2008 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

The problem with Civil Unions is that to make it fair everyone that is "Married" under the law would no longer be so, and that would upset a great number of people as well. Calling a legal institution one thing for one group and one thing for a another is not right. IMHO its all or nothing we are all "Married" Legally or we are all "Civilly Joined"

Score: 2

RE[2]: Applause
by Eugenia on Sat 25th Oct 2008 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Applause"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I don't like faceless companies. Offering an opinion makes these companies more "human".

Personally, I am against Prop8. In the past, I just didn't care much about the whole thing, but having since met gay couples that are together for as long as 20 years, it strongly shows that marriage is everyone's right.

Score: 2

RE[2]: Applause
by mabhatter on Sun 26th Oct 2008 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Applause"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

I disagree. Whatever your views on proposition 8, it does not behoove any private company to weigh in on issues that are strictly social-political, if for no other reason than business sense. Google and Apple risk alienating both their customers and their employees. Sure, they might earn some good will from proponents of proposition 8, but not not as much as they would lose from its detractors. It's for the same reason that few companies will openly support a political candidate. Separation of church and state? What about separation of corporation and state?

It's simply not the role of a private business company, nor should it be.


If this is like the Michigan proposition, then this change is binding for companies as well... that means that Apple will no longer be allowed to offer it's "gay" workers this benefit when the state changes insurance law to make such coverage illegal. This affects how Apple and Google choose to do business with their employees at the most basic level. This is actually nullifying things that have been changing for 10 years in private companies so that a few moral bigots don't have to play nice.

Score: 3

RE: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sat 25th Oct 2008 23:38 UTC in reply to "Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".


How ridiculously unnecessary!

The law meant something specific when it was created and accepted. Democratic forms of governments have orderly processes which allow the populace to change the meaning of the laws. The problem here is that, instead of actually building public support to change the laws through due process, the left got some judges to pretend that the law meant something else, and now Californians in favor of the law's meaning actually have to create a proposition to make sure the laws granting marital status actually apply as they did before the judges started pretending otherwise.

Why pretend that the law means something other than what was agreed when it was created and accepted by due process? You on the left do have a legitimate means of changing the law at your disposal, instead of just convincing a few people in one court.

I can do nothing but applaud these moves by Google and Apple. As someone who holds unconditional equality in the highest possible regard, the equality of all men is of the utmost importance. Whether you are black, white, or polka dot; whether you like boys, girls, or both; whether you believe in God, Allah, or the Cosmic Goat - we are all equal, and it is not the task of the state to tell people that they are not.


What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.

Why pretend that society can't have boundaries on what is and is not marriage? Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?

Nor the state, not the church define marriage - the people who marry do. I am proud that we in The Netherlands realised that as one of the first countries. We got the ball rolling, I hope Californians will give it another push.


You are right about the state and religion not being able to define marriage. But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be. Talk to someone involved in polygamy or incest and see if you *really* believe, as you claimed, that any two people in love ought to be able to alter society's definition of marriage. The whole idea is ridiculous, unless you only consider love you *already* defined legitimate as being the only kinds of relationships you'll accept as determining what you believe marriage is. That's just circular logic.

Thing is -- and I'm saying this because it needs to be said -- no one can change the definition of marriage. It is what it is: the union of the sexes, one man and one woman. Not two men plus a goat, or three women, or two inanimate objects. Fact is, what you would call "heterosexual" marriage is actually just what society established as a necessary construct for dealing with the natural progression, in male + female relationships, of romance -> sex -> pregnancy. Forcing society as a whole to accept an inherently irrational idea like homosexual "marriage" will only work for so long, until it's simply discarded by future generations.

You can try to sell me on the nonsense that homosexual individuals are born that way -- as if this is somehow an equality issue instead of merely being about society's establishing certain boundaries around sex and sexuality -- but it won't work. Fact is, in terms of who's capable of experiencing pleasure with whom, everyone's bisexual; the difference in individuals' sexual preferences is psychological: their past experiences, their beliefs, how they've chosen to respond, what they're willing to accept, etc.

The thing is, marriage and this homosexual "marriage" concept you're requiring everyone to accept are not the same thing, nor are they even on the same level, and forcing everyone who, like me, isn't willing to pretend that they are equal just creates more tension.

People can start the name-calling, the allusions to Hitler, or whatever, now if they really want to get back at me. But the fact is that just a short time ago homosexuality was considered just as bad as incest or bestiality, and I'd appreciate being able to talk to someone who is willing to discuss, on a rational level, why these concepts are different or similar.


From the article:

While we respect the strongly held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.


There's been no proof that people are born with a certain sexual orientation, and I've seen all I need to see to the contrary (e.g. high profile "gay" people changing sexual orientation to "straight" or "bi" and being happy about it), so the premise here is incorrect. It's not a case of being born differently (and therefore locked into a particular lifestyle if one is to be happy); homosexuality, by contrast, is a case of what choices society as a whole will accept.

We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 - we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.


The mission statement is false on its face. The homosexual rights activists are not seeking existing rights for themselves; they are seeking to have judges grant (1) new rights (2) for everyone. Specifically, prior to the judicial usurpation, the law (2) allowed no one (1) to marry anyone of the same sex. Anyone want to try to deny that hetero Hollywood celebrities won't use same-sex marriage as a publicity stunt? Anyone want to claim that the state allowed incestuous marriages? It's a case of new rights for everyone, not just people who identify as homosexual or bisexual at the time when they obtain "marriage" licenses.

Edited 2008-10-25 23:43 UTC

Score: 4

RE[2]: Applause
by HappyGod on Sun 26th Oct 2008 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Applause"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Yours was a very long post so I'll only address a couple of the points you raised.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that sexuality is black or white. It exists in gradients, like right or left handedness. So just because you have seen people change sides doesn't prove anything.

Secondly every law we have protects a victim. You asked why things like paedophilia and beastiality are different. They are different because in both cases there is a victim who cannot protect themselves. With incest the victims are the children who are born with birth defects as a result of these relationships. There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.

Bottom line is, if you cannot frame an argument against a given law without resorting to religion, then it's fine.

Edited 2008-10-26 00:16 UTC

Score: 4

RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

Firstly, nobody is claiming that sexuality is black or white. It exists in gradients, like right or left handedness. So just because you have seen people change sides doesn't prove anything.


Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).

Secondly every law we have protects a victim.


Where would you place drug laws? (Right now, I'm just talking about the part of drug laws that addresses adults, not kids.) Public indecency laws? I don't accept the premise that laws need to protect a victim. Incest would be just as illegal between consenting adult siblings who could conceivably elect to use in vitro w/ anonymous donor as it would be with underage family members, and it'd be just as wrong. Oh, and it does happen.

You asked why things like paedophilia and beastiality are different. They are different because in both cases there is a victim who cannot protect themselves. With incest the victims are the children who are born with birth defects as a result of these relationships. There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.


The victims in homosexual relationships would not be immediately apparent, especially if you believe that homosexuality is an equally healthy and valid choice. Pretend for the moment that you disagree with the second part. Then, the victims would be: (a) homosexual individuals, who are taught that they have to adjust their lifestyles (and all the costs thereof) and fight "discrimination" for whatever happiness they can find; (b) children, who are taught that this is an equally valid choice early in life (when it is much easier to change one's sexual orientation); (c) friends and family members, who are forced to accept this and/or all the associated flack; (d) businesses, which get regularly shaken down (under the faulty premise that unless they "donate" money to homosexual activists, they are somehow anti-gay); (e) society in general, which has to spend enormous amounts of time, money, and energy debating, researching, investigating, debunking, repealing, leering/baiting, name-calling, apologizing, etc. over something for which society has no real need; (f) people who disagree with a lot of the false claims and are thus often villified; (g) spouses who find that their other spouses use a variety of excuses and rationalizations related to homosexuality to get off the hook (e.g. it's not really cheating; I really love my spouse; my spouse owes me his/her support as I'm cheating).

I've spent some time over the last few years looking at various publicly available topics on homosexual Internet communications including sexual fantasies, dating advice, health concerns, relationship discussions, etc. to see what's what and have come to the conclusion that homosexuality doesn't have a purpose. I.e., there is really nothing of unique value, nor could it exist on its own. It's merely a large set of copies, distortions, and fantasies of things that exist naturally in heterosexual relationships. Why equate homosexuality with heterosexuality? I could understand homosexuality being regarded by some as a valid subset of heterosexuality -- because it is a subset in purely pragmatic terms: love and pleasure but inherently no reproduction -- but equating it would be wrong. And I don't want to see any responses about how we're somehow morally obligated to ignore these facts.

Bottom line is, if you cannot frame an argument against a given law without resorting to religion, then it's fine.


I don't understand what religion has to do with any of this.

Edited 2008-10-26 03:32 UTC

Score: 4

RE[4]: Applause
by siride on Sun 26th Oct 2008 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

"Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once). "

That false claim is a strawman constructed by anti-gay proponents. There is no rule that people are forced to be this way or that. But people are this way or that. Some are straight and some are gay. And a lot are in between. So they can switch, in a sense, because they don't fall cleanly into the false dichotomy of straight versus gay. The truly gay people really won't switch. The day my ubergay friend decides to date a woman is the day the Pope will announce he is Muslim. The same is true for many/most straight people. That still does not change the reality that sexuality is fluid and a gradient, not an either-or constant-over-time as some would like to make it out to be.

Score: 4

RE[5]: Applause
by javiercero1 on Sun 26th Oct 2008 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Applause"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

Furthermore, the whole debate between the voluntary vs. genetic nature of sexuality is moot.

No democratic government should sanction the limitation of rights, of any of its citizens, based on their sexual preferences. As long as it involves consenting adults, it is none of the government's business. Period.

Any citizen should have his or her rights intact regardless of the gender of the person they want to establish a family with. As long as it is based on a consenting contract, it is the government's job to protect the rights and interests of such unions.

If that pisses off some religious organizations, too bad. Gay couples pay taxes, since Churches don't their opinion on the matter should be irrelevant and non-binding.

Score: 2

RE[4]: Applause
by atriq on Sun 26th Oct 2008 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
atriq Member since:
2007-10-18

Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).
So no one's actually gay because a few people who were fickle about it. Well, thanks for clearing up 2500+ years of social ambiguity in a single post.

And I'm sure the Bonobos are just giving into fads as well.

Score: 2

RE[5]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

So no one's actually gay because a few people who were fickle about it.


That's not what I said. If you want to know what I said, then you can re-read what you're responding to.

Score: 1

v RE[4]: Applause
by badtz on Sun 26th Oct 2008 05:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
RE[4]: Applause
by HappyGod on Sun 26th Oct 2008 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Wow, what a rant! I think it may be time to switch to decaf ...

Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).


OK, I repeat, sexuality (like all biological things) exists in gradients. Would you for example decide that it is not natural for left handed people to exist if you saw an ambidextrous person switch from writing with the right hand, to writing with their left? Would you also be surprised if a very left-handed person found it near impossible to write with their right hand? Can you see how both of these scenarios can exist?

Where would you place drug laws? (Right now, I'm just talking about the part of drug laws that addresses adults, not kids.) Public indecency laws? I don't accept the premise that laws need to protect a victim. Incest would be just as illegal between consenting adult siblings who could conceivably elect to use in vitro w/ anonymous donor as it would be with underage family members, and it'd be just as wrong. Oh, and it does happen.


In the case of a drug addicts, the victims are the drug users themselves. Easy. And public indecency laws? The unfortunate viewing public.

With regards to incest and homosexuality, "normal" is defined purely by your culture. For example Maori people have always accepted homosexuals as perfectly normal. Similarly, Indians have always accepted marriage between cousins, and Muslim nations accept marriage between an uncle and niece as "normal".

I don't understand what religion has to do with any of this.


Give me an argument that doesn't run along the lines of: "It's just wrong/unnatural OK?" or "God says it's wrong OK?".

Score: 3

RE[5]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

Wow, what a rant!


It wasn't a rant, but whatever.

OK, I repeat, sexuality (like all biological things) exists in gradients. Would you for example decide that it is not natural for left handed people to exist if you saw an ambidextrous person switch from writing with the right hand, to writing with their left? Would you also be surprised if a very left-handed person found it near impossible to write with their right hand? Can you see how both of these scenarios can exist?


And that is neither here nor there, because you yourself are stating that there are some people for whom a homosexual lifestyle is necessary for their happiness. We can talk about gradients and rainbows and pretty little flowers all day long, but if a few simplified categories happen to cover the relevant cases, then you're just splitting hairs to demand additional complexity. What effect do your "gradients" have on the discussion? What does it change?

The right hand vs. left hand analogy is flawed because neither is actually better than the other, which, as I already pointed out, doesn't correspond to the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. If we're going to make an argument by analogy (which is itself a fallacy), then it would be more correct to look at homosexuality as a case of someone wanting to believe that their right foot is actually a middle hand, and then demanding that everyone else accept them as three-handed/one-footed people.

In the case of a drug addicts, the victims are the drug users themselves. Easy. And public indecency laws? The unfortunate viewing public.


But here you seem to be in favor of using the law to impose your cultural limitations on others. So if you go to another country and see nudity in public, will you cry foul and act like a victim, or will you come here and demand that our laws should be changed because there's nothing wrong with showing the human body in public? And if you go to another country and find that such drug use is considered a legitimate part of their culture, will you cry foul and point out the victims, or will you come here and demand that our laws be changed because adults should have the right to use such substances in moderation? So, assuming you don't oversimplify the situation, what part of your disagreement with these things doesn't fall under an "it's just wrong/unnatural" or a "God says it's bad" type of argument?

With regards to incest and homosexuality, "normal" is defined purely by your culture. For example Maori people have always accepted homosexuals as perfectly normal. Similarly, Indians have always accepted marriage between cousins, and Muslim nations accept marriage between an uncle and niece as "normal".


No, "normal" is not defined by culture. That's a descriptive viewpoint that allows virtually anything that won't outright destroy a society, when what's needed here is a prescriptive viewpoint on a moral issue. Specifically, is it unethical to require people to treat homosexuality as inequal to heterosexuality, or is it unethical to require people to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality?

I say, in answer to the real question underlying this discussion, that what is to be (<-- future tense, as in a decision to be made) considered "normal" needs to be defined by the inherent properties of our humanity (e.g. how we reproduce, what requirements and consequences are implied, etc.). We have social constructs for reasons, not just for the sake of tradition or to give jewelers some extra business. What are those reasons? Marriage exists as a social construct to provide some structure to pregnancy and the relationships between the mother, father, children, and extended family.

We could come up with a hypothetical culture in which family members are encouraged to share sexual experiences on a daily basis, without doing it in a way resulting in pregnancy, but it wouldn't be any less wrong. You keep dodging the topic of victimless incest by skirting around the issue. Society has a right and an obligation to enforce some minimum standards about sexual conduct, not just to protect easily identifiable victims.

Give me an argument that doesn't run along the lines of: "It's just wrong/unnatural OK?" or "God says it's wrong OK?".


You're saying, "It's just equal OK, so just think of it in the same terms," and I'm pointing out that, as a matter of fact, it's not equal, and using the law or stereotypes or insults to make other people act as if it's equal is wrong. Absent from your posts is any discussion of why we should use the same terms to apply to homosexual unions as we do to apply to marriages. What makes them equal and interchangeable? If you really know why you believe what you believe, then that should be a very simple question for you to answer.

Score: 1

RE[6]: Applause
by Arun on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Applause"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07



No, "normal" is not defined by culture. That's a descriptive viewpoint that allows virtually anything that won't outright destroy a society, when what's needed here is a prescriptive viewpoint on a moral issue. Specifically, is it unethical to require people to treat homosexuality as inequal to heterosexuality, or is it unethical to require people to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality?


That's some seriously incoherent rambling there. It is unethical to pass laws discriminating people for being normal. The precise reason why it is unethical to discriminate based on race.

I say, in answer to the real question underlying this discussion, that what is to be (


The real problem underlying this discussion is you have an incorrect view on homosexuality and are trying to defend your incorrect view, quite unsuccessfully at that.

Score: 1

RE[4]: Applause
by Arun on Sun 26th Oct 2008 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07



Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).


That is utter nonsense. Homosexuality is not about just sex. Homosexual relationships are just like Heterosexual relationships. Same ups and downs and same deal with sex. It is also not a choice, nor is it a lifestyle any more than A black person marrying an Asian a lifestyle or a Left handed person marrying a Right handed person a lifestyle choice.

You seeing something doesn't make it true. What you are seeing is Sexual Behavior. Completely different from Sexual Orientation. There have been numerous objective and scientific studies done over 35 years or so that prove you wrong.

Here is what the American Psychological Association says about it:
http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

"What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
"


Where would you place drug laws? (Right now, I'm just talking about the part of drug laws that addresses adults, not kids.)


Err that's why people are fighting to get drug laws changed everyday.


The victims in homosexual relationships would not be immediately apparent, especially if you believe that homosexuality is an equally healthy and valid choice. Pretend for the moment that you disagree with the second part. Then, the victims would be: (a) homosexual individuals, who are taught that they have to adjust their lifestyles (and all the costs thereof) and fight "discrimination" for whatever happiness they can find; (b) children, who are taught that this is an equally valid choice early in life (when it is much easier to change one's sexual orientation); (c) friends and family members, who are forced to accept this and/or all the associated flack; (d) businesses, which get regularly shaken down (under the faulty premise that unless they "donate" money to homosexual activists, they are somehow anti-gay); (e) society in general, which has to spend enormous amounts of time, money, and energy debating, researching, investigating, debunking, repealing, leering/baiting, name-calling, apologizing, etc. over something for which society has no real need; (f) people who disagree with a lot of the false claims and are thus often villified; (g) spouses who find that their other spouses use a variety of excuses and rationalizations related to homosexuality to get off the hook (e.g. it's not really cheating; I really love my spouse; my spouse owes me his/her support as I'm cheating).


Homosexuality doesn't change any of that. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals would be treated exactly the same in the same situation. That's what equality means.

Read the link above you cannot change Sexual Orientation. Anyone that says you can isn't really Homosexual or is blowing smoke up your nether regions.



Why equate homosexuality with heterosexuality? I could understand homosexuality being regarded by some as a valid subset of heterosexuality -- because it is a subset in purely pragmatic terms: love and pleasure but inherently no reproduction -- but equating it would be wrong. And I don't want to see any responses about how we're somehow morally obligated to ignore these facts.


Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are a subset of the sexual spectrum.

How do you explain Homosexual animals then in purely pragmatic terms of love and pleasure? Do animals love each other and have monogamous relationships?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Edited 2008-10-26 16:36 UTC

Score: 0

RE[4]: Applause
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 26th Oct 2008 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy).


And you've come to this conclusion, based on a sample size of... Anne Heche?

See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).


In the same way that people on the right will move the goalposts and try to paint all support of same-sex marriage as simultaneous support of incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc?

Score: 2

RE[5]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

"Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy).


And you've come to this conclusion, based on a sample size of... Anne Heche?
" [/q]

No, but then again it's not a matter of sample size, in the first place. Just to illustrate: If ten million people told you that there is no such thing as an elephant, and you finally saw one, would the sample size make your observation irrelevant? Tell me why sample size matters here.

"See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).


In the same way that people on the right will move the goalposts and try to paint all support of same-sex marriage as simultaneous support of incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc?
"

Are you pretending that I equated homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.? That would be absurd. What I said is that society used the same reasons for not allowing all four of those things, and suddenly the left has eliminate those reasons in defense of homosexuality, so I asked what reasons we're to use to continue to ban the latter three things. It's a valid question. HappyGod attempted to answer it, instead of just making up something offensive about me. What answers would you come up with?

Score: 1

RE[3]: Applause
by LucasJ on Sun 26th Oct 2008 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
LucasJ Member since:
2007-12-27

There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.


Don't children have a right to be raised by a mother and a father?

Yes, I know that unfortunately parents divorce or children are raised by a single parent, but for society and the government to recognise the union between a husband and wife -- mother and father -- as equal to that between same-sex couples, doesn't this entail that two mothers or two fathers are also recognised as the family ideal, the best circumstance in which children can brought up in?

Of course, same-sex couples can't naturally produce children, yet being granted the status of "marriage" must surely mean equal adoption rights and access fertility treatments. How can "married" same-sex couples be discriminated against if technology advances should enable the creation of children genetically derived from two fathers/mothers?

Score: 1

RE[2]: Applause
by DrillSgt on Sun 26th Oct 2008 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Applause"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Thing is -- and I'm saying this because it needs to be said -- no one can change the definition of marriage. It is what it is: the union of the sexes, one man and one woman."

That is how it is defined by the worlds oldest cult, known as Christianity. I respect your beliefs. However you do not have the right to force your beliefs on others, especially not those of the courts of law, where religion should not, but sometimes sadly does, have a say. Christianity also supports and has supported the slaughter of innocents, proven by the Spanish Inquisition among many other incidents throughout history. What if others define it differently? They are automatically wrong because it goes against your beliefs? The US is and was founded on a principle of freedom of religion, and tolerance. Lets not keep repeating the mistakes of our forefathers. If you are a US citizen, read our constitution. Understand it and what was meant. That is our biggest problem, is people trying to "interpret" it, rather than read and understand it. The thing is in the english language, so should not be that hard for an english speaker. Forget your religion, read the constitution, and understand the rights that ALL people should have.

Score: 0

RE[3]: Applause
by dagw on Sun 26th Oct 2008 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

That is how it is defined by the worlds oldest cult, known as Christianity.

Last time I checked Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism could trace their roots further back than Christianity. If you you're going to launch attacks on a religion try to get your basic facts right, otherwise you just come across looking quite silly.

Score: 4

RE[4]: Applause
by DrillSgt on Sun 26th Oct 2008 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Last time I checked Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism could trace their roots further back than Christianity. If you you're going to launch attacks on a religion try to get your basic facts right, otherwise you just come across looking quite silly."

The difference is I don't have people from those religions knocking on my door telling me I am going to hell if I don't belong.

You are correct, it should be "one of the oldest", not "the oldest".

Score: 2

RE[2]: Applause
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 26th Oct 2008 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Applause"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Not any two people. Two (or more) consenting adults can do whatever they hell they want in the bedroom, I really don't care. It's none of my business.

And equating homosexuality with paedophilia... I thought the world was past that nonsense by now? I guess I'm just a little too used to being Dutch, and I forgot how backwards most parts of the world still are.

Score: 2

RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

"What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Not any two people. Two (or more) consenting adults can do whatever they hell they want in the bedroom, I really don't care. It's none of my business.
"

So if you had a sister and a brother, both consenting adults, and if they came to you and told they were in love and wanted to be married and have kids via in vitro with an anonymous sperm donor, you'd be OK with that? Or what if it was your father and your adult sister? That's just sick. Being in love doesn't, by itself, make it right. So, assuming you don't support these two examples, how would you modify your claim about love between consenting adults being the only standard?

And equating homosexuality with paedophilia... I thought the world was past that nonsense by now? I guess I'm just a little too used to being Dutch, and I forgot how backwards most parts of the world still are.


I'll give you the same response as I gave StephenBeDoper:

Are you pretending that I equated homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.? That would be absurd. What I said is that society used the same reasons for not allowing all four of those things, and suddenly the left has eliminate those reasons in defense of homosexuality, so I asked what reasons we're to use to continue to ban the latter three things. It's a valid question. HappyGod attempted to answer it, instead of just making up something offensive about me. What answers would you come up with?

Score: 1

RE[2]: Applause
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Applause"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Wow, that is one odious tin of red herrings you've opened up, with a nice dash of the slippery-slope fallacy to garnish.

Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?


Ah, a page from the Rick Santorum playbook.

So you equate homosexuality with bestiality? I'm guessing you don't extend that to the figurative abuse of red herrings?

But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be.


Glad to hear you've made it official. Guess you had better contact and share your discovery with all of those ignorant lexicographers who seem to think that marriage also means "an intimate or close union," or "a blending or matching of different elements or components."

Score: 2

RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

"What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Wow, that is one odious tin of red herrings you've opened up, with a nice dash of the slippery-slope fallacy to garnish.
"

(See the responses for all the other times people pretended that I equated homosexuality with other types of sexual perversions.)

"Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?


Ah, a page from the Rick Santorum playbook.

So you equate homosexuality with bestiality? I'm guessing you don't extend that to the figurative abuse of red herrings?
"

Why are you pretending that I equated homosexuality with bestiality? They're only alike (not equivalent) -- in the same way that two people can have male DNA without being the same person -- in that they are both sexual perversions by definition. That's what sexual perversion means. Look the words up, and at least try to understand what I'm saying, if you intend to respond to me.

"But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be.


Glad to hear you've made it official. Guess you had better contact and share your discovery with all of those ignorant lexicographers who seem to think that marriage also means "an intimate or close union," or "a blending or matching of different elements or components."
"

*sigh*

Well, you can pretend my words mean whatever you want them to mean, if that helps you make fun of me. The reality is that dictionary entries using literary constructs such as imagery (for example usage, "a marriage of bricks and mortar") are irrelevant. What's being discussed is whether it's right or wrong to equate homosexual "marriage" with marriage. I don't see you attempting to write any rational responses to what I've written. You seem content to just jump around and pick fights with me.

Score: 1

RE: Applause
by andrewg on Sun 26th Oct 2008 09:35 UTC in reply to "Applause"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

The issue of equality is not the issue for Proposition 8 proponents. They are equally for equality before the law and its funny that Apple says it respects the arguments on both sides without actually having a clue what the arguments are.

The question is, is marriage more than an just a legal arrangement between two people. The historical view of marriage was that a man and a woman, two halves would come together and quite literally join and become a new whole. It is interesting that only in male/female intercourse is an actual whole single organism created which is why marriages always had to be consumated before being legal. It simply not possible for two males or females to take part in such a union.

Marriage under this definition is not discriminatory as it is open to everyone.

Whether or not Civil Unions should receive the same benefits as marriage is of course another question but I really wish companies would stay out of socially divisive issues. Especially when they mispresent or don't even understand the arguments they claim to.

Score: 3

neutrality
by renhoek on Sat 25th Oct 2008 20:09 UTC
renhoek
Member since:
2007-04-29

sorry, but i'm really against this. companies should not interfere in the democratic process. this time it's gay marriage, next time its about if the government should bail out the banks. all those lobby groups cause nothing but screwed up politics.

people have voted for the people who should represent them (assuming no vote fraud), and let them do their job. and don't vote again for them if they screw up. there is no need to "rectify" the democratic process.

thom: please don't confuse our dutch "I don't give a shit." attitude with freedom. and that's also my attitude towards gay marriage. hmm..come think of it, that IS freedom!

Score: 6

RE: neutrality
by JonOtt on Sat 25th Oct 2008 21:38 UTC in reply to "neutrality"
JonOtt Member since:
2008-10-25

sorry, but i'm really against this. companies should not interfere in the democratic process. this time it's gay marriage, next time its about if the government should bail out the banks. all those lobby groups cause nothing but screwed up politics.

people have voted for the people who should represent them (assuming no vote fraud), and let them do their job. and don't vote again for them if they screw up. there is no need to "rectify" the democratic process.

thom: please don't confuse our dutch "I don't give a shit." attitude with freedom. and that's also my attitude towards gay marriage. hmm..come think of it, that IS freedom!


Dude, companies buy elections all of the time.

How naive can you be?

Those people that you "vote" to represent you were put there by special interests, not you. And they will serve those special interests first and foremost.

At least in this case it's in the open and it's for basic human rights, not personal profit. Though the latter will be a side effect, no doubt.

Score: 2

RE: neutrality
by javiercero1 on Sat 25th Oct 2008 22:44 UTC in reply to "neutrality"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

Corporations in the United States are recognized as "people"

It is a weird concept. Alas, it makes sense for a corporation to take a stand on an issue that is bound to affect its employees. Esp. since this is a ballot issue in California and Apple is a California-based corporation.

The irony of the people complaining about a company expressing a political view, is the fact that prop 8 is being shoveled down our throats, mainly, by the Mormon Church.


My stance against prop 8 is not just because it is an unfair discriminatory measure (I don't believe sexual orientation should be an issue when accessing full civil rights). I am also opposed to a church, based mostly in Utah, meddling with the amendment of the California Constitution.

They should keep their church out of my government if you want to continue keeping our taxes out of their churches. Ironically, Apple does pay taxes... and thus I think they should be allowed to voice their opinion. This is after all a free society...

Edited 2008-10-25 22:46 UTC

Score: 3

RE[2]: neutrality
by irbis on Sun 26th Oct 2008 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE: neutrality"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

The debate over same sex marriage is also essentially a fight for the right to define what marriage and related values in general are dominant in the society - and there is no consensus in sight in that respect. Maybe also many more parties in the debate than may first seem.

The irony of the people complaining about a company expressing a political view, is the fact that prop 8 is being shoveled down our throats, mainly, by the Mormon Church.

The question of polygamy and Mormons is interesting here as an example of another kind of minority.

As a European I don't know about the US details in this debate - but the above quote reminds me that there's more historical irony in the fact that the Mormon church - just about a century ago - actively practiced and promoted polygamy, their own interpretation of marriage that differed very much from the mainline culture and values - but at that time they were forbidden from polygamy by the law and the government (although some small LDS groups seem to still practice polygamy).

It is important to protect the rights of minorities. But which minority rights are considered most important and which may not be worth supporting at all, and why? Those can be surprisingly tricky political questions and not so obvious as may first seem.

Could you support polygamy where a person is married to two or more persons, all voluntarily? If not, why? Because of your personal values? But others may have different values. Because of the dominant values in your society and culture now? But are you sure that they are the dominant values or that they won't change yet again in a few decades again? Who should have the last word? Or could all differing groups have their own marriage rules and customs, maybe laws too?

The values related to traditional western marriage have changed a lot through history too. Before birth control people used to get married at a very early age and the marriages were often arranged by the parents. Marriage between a man and a woman was a way to guarantee that the often huge number of children, and their young mother, would have a decent future and life. Often that was the whole deal. Romantic love as an essential defining part of a marriage was not considered a necessity, but marriage was considered a life long relationship - unlike often today when marriage may be seen just as a sign of deep romantic love only - that love and relationship may also end as fast as the feelings get cold or if you find someone more attractive than your current partner.

Edited 2008-10-26 01:41 UTC

Score: 6

RE: neutrality
by mabhatter on Sun 26th Oct 2008 17:53 UTC in reply to "neutrality"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

"As Apple notes in the statement, it was among the first companies to offer equal rights and benefits to its employees' same-sex partners, so this move should not come as a surprise from an ideological standpoint. However, for both these companies it is very unusual to speak out so openly on such a - in most countries, at least - controversial political issue. "

Except if this constitutional change is like the one pulled in Michigan, it will apply to ALL business transactions involving "civil partnerships" not just gay marriage. This means that Apple's policy of covering "households" or "plus one" employees on medical insurance or life insurance policies will be made null and void. Insurance companies will no longer have to honor the contracts. In Michigan during the 90's they had added "plus one" benifits to certain union contracts (university teachers,etc) not explicitly to allow "gays" but also unmarried folk, long term roommates, etc, carefully written to not use the "gay" word. The VERY first thing done when our rule passed was for the AG to declare those union negotiated benefits null and stop paying them.

This does affect private businesses... this is essentially outlawing any progress the free market has made in benefits coverage outside of strictly married people as well as a bunch of other things. This will take away benefits from Apple's employees that Apple has agreed to when the insurance companies refuse coverage citing these new rules.

Score: 2

Comment by BSDfan
by BSDfan on Sat 25th Oct 2008 20:10 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

There are far to many religious nut jobs out there, why can't we just ban them? ;)

Score: 0

But yet
by SlackerJack on Sat 25th Oct 2008 20:32 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

At the same time Apple bans the marriage of OS X on PC hardware, ipod/iphone marriage to sync with any other software other than iTunes.

Score: 9

Comment by AmigaRobbo
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 25th Oct 2008 21:10 UTC
AmigaRobbo
Member since:
2005-11-15

Shouldn't this be up to individuals not organisations to support or otherwise? What about their workers who don't agree it?

Score: 4

RE: Comment by AmigaRobbo
by zegenie on Sat 25th Oct 2008 22:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by AmigaRobbo"
zegenie Member since:
2005-12-31

Shouldn't this be up to individuals not organisations to support or otherwise? What about their workers who don't agree it?

I think is a very valid point. No matter where you stand on the issue at hand - how can a company publicly claim a position on such a controversial issue? As an employee, you are usually supposed to "back up" your companys politics, but how can you do that in this case if you fundamentally disagree? I, too, agree that companies shouldn't publicly "take a stand" in issue like this, if for no other reason than that they are putting all their employees in a very difficult position.

Score: 6

olliej
Member since:
2008-10-25

Prop8 is not about banning gay marriage, it's about removing an existing right.

The effect of prop8 is to breakup thousands of existing same sex marriages, and remove the right of people to see their loved ones in hospital, and to institutionalise discrimination and bigotry.

Voting no on prop8 will change nothing that is currently true, voting yes on prop8 destroys families.

Score: 3

Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

Existing right? Hardly. I know of no other society in history that recognized marriage outside of male and female. Marriage is a term shared between religion and civil. As such, religion has equal say in defining it as civil.

Why not be content with Civil Unions? At least you are not penalized by the IRS as with Marriage. The legal framework of a Civil Union needs to be tweaked to obtain similar benefits, but do recall that while you have may have a "fundamental right" to have sex with whomever you chose, it does not follow that you have a "fundamental right" to call it marriage.

Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I know of no other society in history that recognized marriage outside of male and female.


Dutch marriage law states, EXPLICITLY:

"A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex."


So, you are wrong.

Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, my statement is not incorrect.


Yes it is. You said you know of no society or country that has defined marriage as being anything other than the bonding of a man and a woman. Well, we have done so as one of the first countries in the world, and some have followed. I know it's inconvenient for your argument, but that's just the way it is.

So yup, you were utterly wrong.

Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Why not be content with Civil Unions? At least you are not penalized by the IRS as with Marriage. The legal framework of a Civil Union needs to be tweaked to obtain similar benefits, but do recall that while you have may have a "fundamental right" to have sex with whomever you chose, it does not follow that you have a "fundamental right" to call it marriage.


I actually agree with this. Before anybody attempts to flame me, let me make it clear that I have nothing against homosexuals and don't give a rat's ass whether they get married or not.

But seriously, to all my gay brothers and sisters out there... why the hell do you want to get married? Do you think by doing so, you're going to somehow change the minds of those who are against it in the first place? Trust me, if they think you are sexual deviants now, they're still going to think that whether you call it marriage or a civil union, so might as well go for the civil union and tell the shallow-minded pricks to go f--k themselves. Why do you need their approval anyway?

Trust me... these people get a kick out of seeing you not allowed to get married, because they think that they are better than you. They're like the elitist pricks down at the country club who don't want you to join. The irony is though, their private little club only means something as long as they know you want to join. But the moment they realize that you just don't give a shit anymore, what do they have then?

Sometimes, I wish marriage were to be banned altogether. Then we could end this pointless debate once and for all.

"And the trees were all made equal... by hatchet, axe, and saw...."

Score: 2

niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

But seriously, to all my gay brothers and sisters out there... why the hell do you want to get married? Do you think by doing so, you're going to somehow change the minds of those who are against it in the first place? Trust me, if they think you are sexual deviants now, they're still going to think that whether you call it marriage or a civil union, so might as well go for the civil union and tell the shallow-minded pricks to go f--k themselves. Why do you need their approval anyway?


in a way, you're answering your own question there. i (and a huge number of other gay people) actually DON'T want to be legally *married*. i, and others, realize that marriage is something handled by churches, not by governments. we also realize that churches will already marry us. what i want is for legal clarity. what that means is that the word "marriage" should not be in the lawbooks. it should be civil unions for everybody. that way, the religious psychopaths would not be able to cloud the issue with their double-talk.

Sometimes, I wish marriage were to be banned altogether. Then we could end this pointless debate once and for all.


exactly.

to make this absolutely clear, this isn't about being a valid religious or moral union in anybody's eyes. (i couldn't possibly care less if some nutcase has a problem with my relationship.) this is about having the right to make important decisions with a partner. this is about legal, medical, and financial protection. until the word marriage is stricken from the lawbooks, there will be problems like this.

Score: 1

mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

Prop8 is not about banning gay marriage, it's about removing an existing right.

The effect of prop8 is to breakup thousands of existing same sex marriages, and remove the right of people to see their loved ones in hospital, and to institutionalise discrimination and bigotry.

Voting no on prop8 will change nothing that is currently true, voting yes on prop8 destroys families.


This is EXACTLY how it was used in Michigan 2 years ago by the state officials when a similar constitutional change was passed here. The change was used to undo all sorts of other non-marriage related things negotiated fairly with state unions and private companies. Go look it up.

Score: 2

There are other issues as well.
by alban on Sat 25th Oct 2008 22:34 UTC
alban
Member since:
2005-11-15

Companies are really collections of people; and entitled to a moral stance.
It is now conventional wisdom in the west that sexual orientation should not be discriminated against. It is sad to see that as in the case of other civil rights campaigns - people only really care about their own equality at home and care nothing for universal human rights around the globe. It might be better to get the death penalty, forced labour or other imprisonment repealed around the world before worrying if californians or the British can get married in a church or not.

Score: 3

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Sat 25th Oct 2008 23:26 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Proposition 8 sound obnoxious in the extreme. But before applauding Google and Apple, consider that this is a very slippery slope. It may sound fine if a corporation supports what you support. But supposing it doesn't. Supposing companies less pleasant than Google or Apple decide to, say, campaign for the suspension of Habeus Corpus or unsustainable deforestation. They spend millions on mendacious but persuasive TV advertising and more millions on Washington lobbyists. There would be uproar, but this is only the reverse side of the same coin. You cannot support the right of corporations to campaign for what you like but not for what you don't like. It's both or nothing.

Imho, corporations should be forbidden from meddling in politics - they have no democratic credentials, for a start. And the amount a corporation can contribute either to charities or to lobbying should be strictly controlled and transparently declared. As has been pointed out many times, corporations became what they are today in part because they were able to be legally treated as if they were a person, something that goes right back to court decisions in the nineteenth century. By now, surely, we have enough experience to know that the "person" a corporation usually represents is a psychopath. Your friend today, the madman with the axe tomorrow.

So while it may sound harsh, I think Google and Apple should stay out of this. Proposition 8 sounds to be about bigotry and intolerance. Neither should have a place in a civilized country or in a proper democracy where the rights of minorities are protected. The voters of California should be asking themselves just what kind of state they are voting for if horrid measures like this are on the menu.

Score: 6

RE: Comment by moleskine
by javiercero1 on Sun 26th Oct 2008 00:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by moleskine"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

It about freedom of expression.

As long as companies are not forcing policy on anyone they are free to state their positions/opinions. You may disagree/agree with them, and you are free to turn off their opinions or discontinue their services in protest.

Score: 2

RE: Comment by moleskine
by DrillSgt on Sun 26th Oct 2008 03:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by moleskine"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"The voters of California should be asking themselves just what kind of state they are voting for if horrid measures like this are on the menu."

Having lived in LA for years and finally escaping it, the California voter generally has no idea about any issues other than what color they are going to dye their hair or what diet to follow next. Hell, they elected the "Governator" for crying out loud. That should tell you something right there.

Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by moleskine
by javiercero1 on Sun 26th Oct 2008 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by moleskine"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

Right, because California is a tiny state with only a single major city. That is why you can make such sweeping generalizations...

Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by moleskine
by DrillSgt on Sun 26th Oct 2008 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moleskine"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Right, because California is a tiny state with only a single major city. That is why you can make such sweeping generalizations..."

I also lived in the Bay Area for quite awhile..no difference. I would say the 2 biggest population centers give an indication. Sad, but true.

Score: 2

It takes Cajones
by Phloptical on Sat 25th Oct 2008 23:32 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Good for Apple and Google taking a stand.

To those who believe they should keep their collective mouths shut.... keep in mind, they represent two "forward-thinking" companies, in most respects. I highly doubt many (if not any, and all) employees in either of those two firms actually prescribe to the hypocritical rhetoric of the dogmatic 'religious right'. If there are employees that do.....I'm sure there's no guard at the door...no hard feelings, take your marbles and go find someone else to work for.

Score: 2

RE: It takes Cajones
by andrewg on Sun 26th Oct 2008 09:58 UTC in reply to "It takes Cajones"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

To those who believe they should keep their collective mouths shut.... keep in mind, they represent two "forward-thinking" companies, in most respects.


Talk about a false dilemma. To be forward thinking one must be against proposition 8?. More like this is a battle between two camps i.e. the everything is subjective camp and the some things are objective camp.

I highly doubt many (if not any, and all) employees in either of those two firms actually prescribe to the hypocritical rhetoric of the dogmatic 'religious right'. If there are employees that do.....I'm sure there's no guard at the door...no hard feelings, take your marbles and go find someone else to work for.


The irony here is that people who view themselves as open, inclusive, and most importantly tolerant are brutal when it comes to anyone disagreeing with them. They will first call you names then show you the door.

Score: 2

Smart Business?
by red_devel on Sun 26th Oct 2008 00:00 UTC
red_devel
Member since:
2006-03-30

I'll keep my own personal opinions on the subject out of the post, and just try to look at it from a business sense. I'm not a stock holder of either of these two companies, but if I was, this is the last thing I would want to see them doing. Taking public sides on a VERY hotbutton issue, AND spending company money on it? What is there to gain here?? Public support, yeah right!

Maybe, since they're both based out west, these two companies have a skewed perspective as to how a decision like this will be viewed by the public. As someone born and raised in the Northeast, and going to school in the deep South, I can assure you both of those regions will react quite differently, and not nearly as favorably. I couldn't think of a better way to give schools and universities in States like Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and others, a reason NOT to adopt your products. Any positive association you get form this will be canceled out by negative reaction of others, if not outweighed.

Also, a lot of people like to jump down the throats of "religious nutjobs" who take stances on issues like this. Let me just say that the pompous and lofty claims of moral superiority from people with more liberal viewpoints are just as big of turnoffs to people like myself, who consider themselves torn on issues like this.

My opinion? How 'bout companies try to just focus on delivering good products and winning customers that way? Let society make its own decisions on moral issues, and leave the stock holders money out of it!

Edit: typo!

Edited 2008-10-26 00:03 UTC

Score: 5

RE: Smart Business?
by Johann Chua on Sun 26th Oct 2008 07:16 UTC in reply to "Smart Business?"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

What makes you think the stock holders don't approve of Apple and Google's donations?

Score: 2

RE[2]: Smart Business?
by smitty on Sun 26th Oct 2008 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Smart Business?"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I'm guessing both companies view it partially as an employee morale building exercise, as I imagine the vast majority of their employees strongly support their actions. It is a little surprising though, since companies usually try to avoid controversial subjects to avoid pissing off half their customers.

Score: 2

Well, all I have to say...
by kensai on Sun 26th Oct 2008 00:34 UTC
kensai
Member since:
2005-12-27

I won't say much, just, what are Google and Apple doing, you do not get in the way of social-political issues like that without getting hurt. That makes me loose some respect for both companies which I thought knew better than Microsoft, I mean I would have expected this kind of behavior by Microsoft but by Google and Apple, hard to believe.

They are just saying one side is wrong, and they are siding with one class of people and its followers. I don't care which side they took, I just see it as a bad PR move, you are openly declaring that you are on either one of those sides, wrong, Google and Apple, just wrong.

What is next, they are going to side with one of the Presidential candidates? Is almost the same of what they are doing now.

Score: 5

RE: Well, all I have to say...
by badtz on Sun 26th Oct 2008 05:07 UTC in reply to "Well, all I have to say..."
badtz Member since:
2005-06-29

again, from their eyes (and rightfully so) this is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. No reason to equate this to a presidential election issue.

Score: 1

Missing the point
by giraffe on Sun 26th Oct 2008 01:47 UTC
giraffe
Member since:
2006-10-13

Google and Apple as private entities (meaning their not govt. owned or controlled) have the right to speech that individuals do. I have the right to then vote with my pocketbook the next time I need a product. The point everyone misses is the fact that laws aren't being re-written by legislators, who's job it is to make law, but by un-elected, and for the most part unaccountable, judiciaries, who are supposed to interpret existing case law and statute. Like it or not, prop 8 puts the power back into the hands of the people, who will make a final determination.

Score: 0

Too bad
by Ressev on Sun 26th Oct 2008 04:18 UTC
Ressev
Member since:
2005-07-18

While I have no issue with corporations supporting civil unions (it is not a function of religion to recognize it), I do take serious issue with the blatant redefining of marriage (which is recognized by religious and civil). Naturally religious organizations will take issue with it. It intrudes and blatantly forces a view point on religions regarding their beliefs.

Yeah, we Christians can tell you it is sinful to engage in homosexual acts or to have sex outside of marriage and you are certainly free to not listen and laugh at us, but now want to have your cake and eat it too? Sorry, doesn't work like that. If you believe in the separation of Church and State than supporting the redefining of marriage (a packed religious term) through legislation is not upholding that.

Nor will it make it any more acceptable to us backwards and unreasoning bigots other than giving ammunition for trial lawyers to sue religious groups.

So... any one for a little polygamy and N.A.M.B.L.A.?

Score: 1

RE: Too bad
by JMcCarthy on Sun 26th Oct 2008 06:24 UTC in reply to "Too bad"
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

My, my, my, a little a bit of a hypocrite are we?

It's wrong for the state to define marriage because you see it as a religious arrangement... Wait, wait, what happened to this whole separation of church and state thing you mentioned earlier? Why is the government in the business of sanctioning/blessing/etc religious arrangements?

Oh, right, the state doesn't see it as a religious arrangement, it sees it as a civil / legal one.

You're the one trying to have your cake and eat it too, you want the government to recognize marriage, but you want them to only recognize your religious definition of marriage. Sorry, it doesn't fly: It's separation of church and state not simply separation of state from church, just as the state isn't entitled to force it's view on the church the church isn't entitled to force its view on the state.


In civilized countries -- like Canada ;) -- the government writes the civil definition and Muslims, Christians, Hindus the religious. Neither forces the other.

Score: 1

RE: Too bad
by niemau on Sun 26th Oct 2008 07:23 UTC in reply to "Too bad"
niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

While I have no issue with corporations supporting civil unions (it is not a function of religion to recognize it), I do take serious issue with the blatant redefining of marriage (which is recognized by religious and civil). Naturally religious organizations will take issue with it. It intrudes and blatantly forces a view point on religions regarding their beliefs.

Yeah, we Christians can tell you it is sinful to engage in homosexual acts or to have sex outside of marriage and you are certainly free to not listen and laugh at us, but now want to have your cake and eat it too? Sorry, doesn't work like that. If you believe in the separation of Church and State than supporting the redefining of marriage (a packed religious term) through legislation is not upholding that.

Nor will it make it any more acceptable to us backwards and unreasoning bigots other than giving ammunition for trial lawyers to sue religious groups.

So... any one for a little polygamy and N.A.M.B.L.A.?


i hate to break it to you, but churches (including various christian-denominations) have been, and will continue to, marry same-sex couples. this has been going on for ages. the truth is, no matter what *civil* laws state, gay people can get married. by a church. even a so-called christian church.

when it comes down to, we shouldn't be arguing that the law shouldn't "redefine" marriage. it really isn't even applicable. that's just twisting of terms to suit the moral compasses of the severely egomaniacal. the government should be getting out of the "marriage" business altogether. every legal union should be considered a civil union. not a marriage. that is up to churches. which, like i pointed out, are already marrying whoever the hell they please. no amount of whining from anybody is going to change that.

a legal union between two people has nothing to do with your faith. get over yourself. my partner and i need the legal security to make financial, medical, and other decisions. right now, that is impossible because of this high-horse that so many people are riding on.

and polygamy and nambla? you disgusting troll.

Score: 1

RE[2]: Too bad
by smitty on Sun 26th Oct 2008 07:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Too bad"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

every legal union should be considered a civil union. not a marriage. that is up to churches.


I couldn't agree more. Why is it that the state issues marriage licenses anyway? It seems to me that the marriage side of things should be handled completely by the church, and after you get married you should go off to the courthouse to get your civil license whether you are gay or straight. That makes way to much sense to ever get passed into law, though.

Score: 2

RE[3]: Too bad
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 26th Oct 2008 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too bad"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It seems to me that the marriage side of things should be handled completely by the church, and after you get married you should go off to the courthouse to get your civil license whether you are gay or straight. That makes way to much sense to ever get passed into law, though.


It's already like that in The Netherlands, just the other way around.

You first get a 'civil marriage', which is 'just' a recording and signing of a marriage contract by the to-be-married, 2-4 witnesses, and a government official. In this contract are the marital vows, as well as the rights and duties that are part of marriage by law.

When that's done, you are free to hold what we call a ceremonial wedding, where you maybe expand on the rather dry marriage contract - you can hold this wherever, whenever, however you want.

Then there is of course the religious wedding. In The Netherlands, a religious wedding may not be conducted PRIOR to the civil wedding, with the penalty being a fine (the fine going to the one conducting the marriage - so the priest). In some countries, it is possible to transfer one type of wedding into another (for instance, you can turn a religious wedding into a civil one). This is not possible here.

This is more or less what you described; there's a civil marriage which does not discriminate (seeing discrimination in any shape or form is prohibited in the first article of our constitution - the Principle Of Equality), and you are then free to add more meaning by marrying before a church, if you so desire.

Score: 1

beosguy@gmail.com
Member since:
2008-07-17

Sure they are one of the well known in SV, and most of the times overly hyped, but they dont speak for many other tech workers in SV. Many of us are more conservative and family oriented than the media would like to paint.

Score: 1

Comment by beosguy@gmail.com
by beosguy@gmail.com on Sun 26th Oct 2008 05:32 UTC
beosguy@gmail.com
Member since:
2008-07-17

Sure some ancients in Greece were gay, but marriage was always between man and woman. Even the ancient cultures understood marriage was about passing the name and family wealth to the 'true blood' in their family. We call it DNA today. Why gays are unable to comprehend simple. Gay marriage is a dead end. Your no longer the son of your fathers father. Trying to create some cheap substitute isnt the answer.

Score: 1

v Comment by beosguy@gmail.com
by beosguy@gmail.com on Sun 26th Oct 2008 05:44 UTC
RE: Comment by beosguy@gmail.com
by badtz on Sun 26th Oct 2008 06:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by beosguy@gmail.com"
badtz Member since:
2005-06-29

all you did was point out your prejudice. how is the dutch society more "screwed up" because of their TOLERANCE for gay citizens? Your bigoted remarks are utterly nonsensical.

Score: 3

patrons and second-class institutions
by fejack on Sun 26th Oct 2008 07:08 UTC
fejack
Member since:
2006-06-12

Throughout the Industrial Revolution, companies used to patronize their employees, sometimes lobbying for laws which eventually improved the quality of life for their workers. It is noble of Google and Yahoo to stand up for a cause, but I'm afraid we are beating a dead horse here.

The problem with this debate is that everyone has one's own concept of marriage, so we cannot agree if we are talking about different things.

Since the dawn of mankind, marriage has been a reasoned covenant between families validated by their cultural and religious background. In Western countries, love between two wedded individuals was optional until the 18th century, when Romanticism introduced the concept that love should prevail over covenant and be the only criterion for choosing a partner. Arranged marriage is still the norm in some Eastern countries, but in our Post-Modern Western societies, the former is taken for granted. Our extensive and prolific Literature, music and cinema all perpetrate the illusion that passion should dictate our choices; yet our high rate of breakups and divorces indicate the serious shortcomings of this model.

Heterosexual monogamy is the norm in most cultures, but there were exception like polyandry, and polygamy is still the norm in some countries. In our cultures, polygamy is heavily stigmatized although in practice polygamy and polyandry do exist in various forms: they call it sexual liberation. Extra-marital affairs, multiple-partners, sex workers or swinging couples. It is interesting to note that Judeo-Christian religions have made us rule polygamy out of our moral system and laws, yet we won't allow those religions to rule out same-sex unions.

Traditionally, marriage consists of two elements. Step #1: two families publicly announced and acknowledged the new covenant between their children. That it why in our cultures we invite friends and relatives, the father walks the bride to the altar and the groom is brought by his mother. Step #2: at least one of the children leaves family to live under a common roof with the new partner.
The State took over Culture in validating the institution of marriage, on which legal and fiscal rights and duties are based. In the 1960's, Post-Modernism suggested that we could do without the official acknowledgment (step #1) and that moving in together (step #2) was sufficient enough. So now we have a gap between real life and law: across Western countries we have matter-of-fact covenants (step #2) that have never been acknowledged by law (step# 1) and are thus deprived of the legal and fiscal advantages. That is why Civil Unions have been invented, but it could be argued that they are a sort of second-class marriage, created to fill a gap rather than an end to itself.

Being on the path to acceptance in a Post-Modern society, same-sex covenant still lacks the cultural fabric sustaining it: it is not a covenant between families, and it cannot rely upon Romanticism alone since that model has shown it flaws. Most families of homosexuals initially struggle to accept the reality of their relative because they lack the cultural foundation and system of belief. This is why I'm afraid same-sex covenant will always be ackward in our societies (I'm talking matter-of-factly here, not passing on judgment).

Hopefully gay lobbyist will realize at some point the paradox of being obsessed with an institution that is losing it meaning for heterosexuals.

Score: 1

reproductive issue only?
by smitty on Sun 26th Oct 2008 07:17 UTC
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

To those claiming that marriage is all about reproduction which should automatically rule out all gay couples:

I know several married (heterosexual) couples that have no intention of having children. Perhaps they will change their mind in the future, but right now they say they won't. Does that mean that in your mind they are not really married? Do you find birth control offensive as well, or is it OK if you only use it some of the time?

Just curious... My personal view is that I would allow gay marriage but I don't have strong feelings about it.

Score: 1

Several points
by spiderman on Sun 26th Oct 2008 09:54 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

The first point of this is the involvement of corporations in societal problems. Whether you like it or net, it happens all the time. It's their marketing department that told them that supporting such a view will benefit their stock holders. Indeed, this is true. In this day and time, it is good for your brand and for your image to support gay marriage. Half a century ago, you could make a young and good image for your corporation by employing women and black men in your business. Your business instantly looked cool. Now that we have matured a bit, employing women and black people is normal. Not doing so would make your brand be boycotted. Today, supporting gay marriage makes your brand look cool. Teen years from now, it will be mandatory to support that view as it is mandatory today not to support sweatshops and slavery.

Now the second point is about the gay marriage itself. This is a strange thing if you ask me. Marriage is a Christian thing. The Muslims support multiple marriage (with several women). I don't know how the jews view it, but in California, I believe they do it the Christian way. Over the last century, we have been gradually moving away from state religion to secularity. Than gayness is not a Christian thing at all. I believe the church doesn't support it at all. So we are mixing a Christian thing with something that isn't. So why do the gays want to do Christian things? In my opinion, this is because society is still very Christian, whether people realize it or not. Marriage is part of Californian current culture. It will fade away with time, but in this transitional period, we will mix secular things with religious thing until we get rid of religion all together (maybe in 1000 years).

Score: 1

RE: Several points
by badtz on Sun 26th Oct 2008 12:55 UTC in reply to "Several points"
badtz Member since:
2005-06-29

"Marriage" isn't a religious act anymore. That lost it's soul the moment government stepped in and monetized it.

People who fight on behalf of "that's the way it's suppose to be" has no basis for their argument, imo.

If you want to preach about gays getting "marriage" than why not preach the bible 100%? We won't even go into all of the things that people do now that do not follow the 'traditions' of the bible ....

Thankfully, California is PROGRESSIVE. Unlike most of the United States.

Score: 1

RE[2]: Several points
by re_re on Sun 26th Oct 2008 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Several points"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

>Thankfully, California is PROGRESSIVE. Unlike most of the United States.<

I will likely be marked down for this but I have to say it.

When you call California "Progressive" what you really mean is California is largely Marxist, anti religion, anti moral, and anti capitalism.

I understand calling people Marxists is not popular, but if you don't believe me, read up on Karl Marx and decide yourself if your views line up.

I may also add, if you wish to expand your horizons, read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Edited 2008-10-26 13:14 UTC

Score: 1

Comment by aent
by aent on Sun 26th Oct 2008 14:44 UTC
aent
Member since:
2006-01-25

I wish they would do it more then just california. In florida, they are trying to put what is labeled on the ballet as "marriage protection act" that bans gay marriage, civil unions, etc. At least Florida allows you to let anyone you want to visit you in the hospital and appoint whoever you want to make decisions for you (it can be your neighbor, friend, whatever, as long as you fill out the paperwork for that person).

Score: 2

8 is H8
by BrendaEM on Sun 26th Oct 2008 15:04 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

Eight is hate.

Proposition eight is a flanking maneuver. Not only does proposition eight explicitly impinge on the freedom of a specific group of individuals--the product of that lack of freedom will itself be used against non-heterosexuals. In other words, people can more easily say that GLBT people are promiscuous--if they are forced to be, as if there is some value in monogamy in the first place.

Proposition eight is a symptom of the failure between church and state.

If enacted the "defense of marriage" act would be the first amendment specifically designed to inhibit and control the freedom of poeple in the United States.

Score: 0

Proposition 8 must pass!
by Mage66 on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:33 UTC
Mage66
Member since:
2005-07-11

It's up to the people of California to decide their fate. Not a few unelected/unaccountable judges who feel they can subsitute their own feelings for the lawful vote of the majority of Californians.

It's a bad precedent, and it's not a power granted to judges in the Constitution.

I'm disappointed in Apple as a customer and a stockholder that they would support violating the Constitution and the Democratic Process by supporting people doing an "end run" around the will of the people.

If Gay Marriage supporters want it to be legal, do it the LEGAL way. Educate folks, win them over to your side, and then support a proposition or legislation to make it legal, the RIGHT WAY.

The ends don't justify the means.

Score: 0

What an Absolutely Stupid Mess
by segedunum on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:41 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I find it funny that people try to apply marriage to same sex relationships when people don't know what marriage is actually for. Marriage was ordained for the procreation of children firstly, and to provide a stable emotional and legal framework as to the nature of the relationship of their parents. That has already been devalued to a massive extent to the point where marriage means nothing now, so it's funny that two stupid companies who have no business getting involved in this at all are doing so.

When same sex couples evolve and start knocking out children, then we'll chat about marriages. Until that day comes then you are free to pop down to your lawyer (solicitor) and come up with a legal framework between the two of you. Just don't pretend that it is marriage please. It isn't, and trying to talk about equality is the usual strawman argument.

Score: 2

RE: What an Absolutely Stupid Mess
by Arun on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:47 UTC in reply to "What an Absolutely Stupid Mess"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

I find it funny that people try to apply marriage to same sex relationships when people don't know what marriage is actually for. Marriage was ordained for the procreation of children firstly, and to provide a stable emotional and legal framework as to the nature of the relationship of their parents. That has already been devalued to a massive extent to the point where marriage means nothing now, so it's funny that two stupid companies who have no business getting involved in this at all are doing so.


So infertile people even though they are heterosexual shouldn't be allowed to marry? Duh! Marriage should require a fertility test then? What if a couple decides they don't want to have kids? Should they be forcefully divorced if they haven't reproduced in what 5, 10. 15 years time?

When same sex couples evolve and start knocking out children, then we'll chat about marriages. Until that day comes then you are free to pop down to your lawyer (solicitor) and come up with a legal framework between the two of you. Just don't pretend that it is marriage please. It isn't, and trying to talk about equality is the usual strawman argument.


That is rubbish. Marriage is a social institution to foster monogamy and create supposed order. It has nothing to do with reproduction. If it had them men should legally be allowed to sow their seeds with a few hundred women. In fact laws would be passed like the ones in Islamic states where men can marry women and have 16-32 children. Why isn't that case all over the world then.

Edited 2008-10-26 18:48 UTC

Score: 0

Closed.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 26th Oct 2008 19:10 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm closing the thread. Everyone's made their points. We're reaching a level of sickness that threatens me enjoying my evening espresso. And that's kind of unacceptable.

Thanks, everyone, for keeping the debate at least remotely almost civil.

Score: 1