NOM BLOG

All Rights from the Apple Creator?

 

This comment appeared on our blog. Because of the mild profanity, it might get erased but I wanted to reproduce it here (censoring only the curses!):

"If you don't like the way Apple and Jobs handles your app, invent your own [darn] computer.  Otherwise, shut the [blank] up!  They owe you nothing and you have no "right" to have your app published.  It is a privilege that is the right of the Apple Creator."

And thus does Steve Jobs becomes our kindly Big Brother, issuing information purification directives, using his market share to protect us from contradictory and confusing truths.

(When you are confident you are right, you have no need or desire to censor alternative views, incidentally.)

21 Comments

  1. Alex
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    What if large groups of people are offended by recipes that mention meat consumption? It's a slippery slope, handing the keys to your conscience over to Steve Jobs. This is yet another reason not to sell your soul to the company that is called Apple.

  2. Don
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    You know, one of the great things about capitalism is that it allows us to have consumerism! I don't have to make my own (expletive deleted) computer, I can simply by products made by another manufacturer! Gotta love that capitalism!

    Take a bite out of the apple! ;-)

  3. Regan DuCasse
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Steve Jobs isn't the government. He is a private entity with a private corporation. He's not forcing the government to shut down the Manhattan Declaration, nor keeping it from others who want it. Just not accessible from HIS company.

    Just as he's not trying to shut down NOM, or have the government do it, however much he might disagree with NOM and the MD, he's also within his rights.

    The fact that NOM doesn't appreciate that, is just too bad. And hypocritical.
    One's religious beliefs are not imposed in this country, nor can the government impose them on others.
    The issue of marriage, is that it's a right for all people, and there isn't a rational reason for a gay couple, or a gay person NOT to marry another gay person.
    In fact, bans against gay people don't 'protect' marriage or married people and children from what can harm ALL people too.
    Complaining about Steve Jobs...as if his company is the ONLY avenue you have, is petulant.
    At best.
    Face, it...having a poisoned Apple is not what Steve Jobs is in it for.

  4. Vast Variety
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    "(When you are confident you are right, you have no need or desire to censor alternative views, incidentally.)"

    Apparently you do censor comments since the one I posted earlier today hasn't been approved even though comments made after the one I did have been.

  5. Fred2
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    @Regan DuCasse

    You're right that Jobs has the right make whatever apps accessible or not through his products.

    Still, from a capitalist perspective, this doesn't make sense because many Americans support traditional marriage. Mr. Jobs also forgot that the under 30 crowd is VERY pro-life, another principle supported by the Manhattan Declaration. Isn't disrespecting the values of the majority of your customers an excuse for them moving on to competitors?

    One more thing. If Jobs is so pro-abortion and pro-homosexual, shouldn't he feel guilty taking money from customers who disagree with him?

  6. Don
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Don't get your shorts in a knot, Vast Variety. My comments are frequently delayed, sometimes as long as a day, awaiting moderation. In fact, I have one pending right now!

  7. Don
    Posted December 15, 2010 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    Regan DuCasse wrote: "The fact that NOM doesn't appreciate that, is just too bad."

    You're obviously confusing us, Regan, with people who care what you think about what NOM appreciates or doesn't appreciate. If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you in the posterior on the way out.

    Regan wrote: "Complaining about Steve Jobs...as if his company is the ONLY avenue you have, is petulant."

    Quite a comment coming from the Queens of Petulance! Californians vote to define marriage as between one man and one woman, whipping you on the ballot, and instead of accepting the will of the people, like big boys, you are still whining and trying every manipulative legal trick in the books to have YOUR way! I think "Infant Monarch" would be the best term to desribe you.

  8. Fred2
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    This video commentary by Chuck Colson brilliantly answers the argument that Apple can block Christian apps because it is a private entity not the US government:

    http://www.colsoncenter.org/twominutewarning/entry/33/16013

  9. Penny Sautereau-Fife, Shaman Of Hedon
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    I doubt this comment will appear here. For NOM to keep a straight face when they say (When you are confident you are right, you have no need or desire to censor alternative views, incidentally.) is truly a remarkable feat indeed, since it's among the biggest bald-faced lies they've ever told. Any comment, however polite, that disagrees with them about marriage equality never sees the light of day on their blog. If they have no "need or desire to censor alternative views", why do they do exactly that every single day? Google GoodAsYou. Jeremy Hooper has frequently documented comments he's submitted here, all of which were polite and respectful, but NEVER published. Why? Because he's a gay man whose comments explain why he believes NOM is wrong. And NOM has repeatedly proven it very much DOES need and desire to censor alternative views. Go ahead, search NOM's blog history. I dare you to find one single opposing viewpoint critiquing NOM's (yes it very much is) bigotry. NOM censors alternative views every single day. I'll bet good money only NOM staffers ever see this comment, because they don't have the moral courage to let someone post a comment that tells them they're wrong, especially if it's polite and mature.

  10. Dwane Porter
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    The problem with the Manhattan Declaration is the matter of full disclosure and truth. Her is just one example of “half truths”

    “Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.”

    Yet how many Christian leaders were against each of these based upon Biblical support? How many stated that society and the family would be destroyed if these things occurred in society. Jerry Farwell was opposed so de-segrigation on of your movements greatest leaders.

    “This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination”

    Yet how many Christian leaders have stated that AIDS is God’s judgment against homosexuals? How many still state that AIDS is a GAY disease?

    “a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.”

    The truth of the matter is that the church did not lose it full tax exempt status. Only the “public facility” which they owned and operated and decided to discriminate based upon their beliefs. They we granted tax exempt status by providing full public access to the facility. They denied that free access – they had a choice they could have kept that venue as a private venue but decide to take advantage of the tax exempt status.

    When you refuse to take accountability for the truth you are not acting in a Christian manner. You are bearing false witness, pushing out unwarranted fears and lies.

  11. DavidKCMO
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    don,

    if you need to go to another company based solely on the fact that it shares your bigoted discriminatory prejudice against homosexuals, by all means please do spend your money there if that is more important to you.

    alex,

    you an only you are in control of your conscience-full stop, hence you have the ability like your friend don to shop elsewhere based solely on your shared bigoted discriminatory prejudices of homosexuality.

    and alex, meat consumption is not something that only bigoted prejudicial persons do on the basis discriminating against another person.

    the correct analogy from your perspective would be more like this: "What if a small group of people are offended by recipes that mention roasting Jews in ovens?"

    your original analogy is incorrect because you change the quantitative to large. i thought you guys were of the mind that only a small, or less than 50%, number of the total population was for gay marriage? it is also an incorrect analogy because the word consumption should be consumers instead of consumption. why, you ask? because this isn't about homosexuality, your beef is wanting to be legally legislated and codified as better than homosexuals the people, not the sexuality. your stance is very base on your clear "us" versus "them" mentality. i say base because you guys have still yet to produce ONE concrete damaging effect of marriage equality in any court of law.

  12. Don
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    DavidKCMO wrote: "if you need to go to another company based solely on the fact that it shares your bigoted discriminatory prejudice against homosexuals, by all means please do spend your money there if that is more important to you."

    Gee, David, can't you come up with something new and original instead of the old "bigoted discriminatory prejudice"? I don't care what you call me or what words you use to describe me but gee whiz, can we have a little variety here?

    Now, David, since you want to sling the mud, one good turn deserves another! You and your friends are anti-American. You support an agenda backed by the communists. You are willing to trade off America to get your little, selfish, self-centered wants met.

    Furthermore, those supporting your side of the issue habitually lie, fabricate and knowingly distort and misrepresent facts in an effort to win undeserved support.

    And yes, David, I'm presonally going to boycott Apple just like you homosexuals sought to boycott Target and countless other businesses. Why is it fine for you to boycott in support of your "cause" but it's somehow wrong for me to boycott in support of what I believe?

  13. adsf
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    "Any comment, however polite, that disagrees with them about marriage equality never sees the light of day on their blog. If they have no "need or desire to censor alternative views", why do they do exactly that every single day?"

    You clearly don't come here very often. Or read the comments on their Youtube channel.

  14. Fred2
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    @adsf

    Sin blinds us all so the responses on alleged NOM "bias" against supporters of homosexuality is not surprising.

  15. Regan DuCasse
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    @Don:
    1. There are Constitutional protections against tyranny towards minorities. Prop. 8 was an inappropriate amendment, because it enshrines discrimination into a document whose purpose and mission statement is protection from discrimination.

    2. Gay men and women EVERYWHERE are a perpetual minority, so you declaring a majority of people's predictable response to a maligned and suspect minority is essentially similar to having a majority of people voting on the rights of blacks during the Jim Crow era. So what if a majority was allowed to vote on the civil freedoms of gay people? Doesn't make it right. And under the scrutiny of Constitutional application, it's PROVEN not to be right.

    3. Other human beings, subjected to systemic bigotry and discrimination (such as Jews, gays, women and blacks) have required this country to live up to it's own moral creed of equality and justice. When has ANY society suffered from expanding such things on citizens who would otherwise be essentially productive but for inequality and injustice?

    4. The real point is NOM and other groups trying to rationalize the tradition of discrimination and proving it's justified. And there hasn't been such proof that gay people deserve this discrimination.

    Your indictment of how gay people have responded to this treatment is what's immature and unwarranted. It's not your life, it's not marriage nor is it actual married people who have suffered any harm.
    And Prop. 8 doesn't really save actual marriages, families or children. It's an inert law whose purpose isn't doing what it was initiated for.

    @ FRED2
    If it doesn't matter what Steve Jobs does, then what is NOM complaining for if so many Americans support traditional marriage?
    NOM wouldn't have made a video, or written several articles asserting exactly the opposite of what YOU just stated.

    WHICH traditional marriage are you talking about? And please name in what way it's harmed or compromised in ANY way by inclusion of gay couples into the same requirements op/sex couples do?
    I think you've completely forgotten, as NOM has, about COEXISTENCE within the SAME guidelines for both ss and os couples.

    Religious and non religious ceremonies coexist according to the couple's preferences and BOTH kinds are legal and valid.
    Same for parent and non parent couples. There are families where only one, neither or both parents are biologically related to their children. These situations ALL coexist in the matter of custody and raising of children for both os and ss couples.
    Both parent and non parent couples have equal requirements in the law, and neither is compromised because the other coexists.
    As for 'natural law', it's natural to be gay, it's natural to NOT be. Both and the other orientation of asexuality, coexist. That they ALL are encouraged to be committed, responsible for each other and be self reliant is a good thing for everyone.

    What anyone has yet to explain, is how self reliance for gay couples is a BAD thing. And securing each other through marriage and taking responsibility for themselves and their children is a bad thing?
    Marriage is now a union of equals. In ss couples that's even MORE true.
    After all, it doesn't DISPLACE op sex couples. Show me WHERE that's EVER happened!
    Gay couples in fact, do not redefine marriage at all, they have to adhere to the same standards ALREADY accepted and understood by everyone.

    So what's the REAL problem here?
    You don't want to say it, and you surely don't want ME to say it.
    The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this isn't family values or about that at all.
    When the most reprobate of hetero people can marry, once and again, and the most exemplary gay couple can't.
    This isn't about any standard but one: a supremacist's standard. And supremacists have been foolish...and dangerous, before.

  16. Don
    Posted December 17, 2010 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    @Regan:

    1) The Constitution protects the majority from tyranny by the minority. We declared our independence from British monarchy because of their tyranny by the minority.

    2) Proposition 8 enshrines the right of the American people to self-determination through a majority vote. The American Revolution was fought and this country founded so that we might have the right of self-determination.

    3) Gay men and women everywhere are a perpetual minority not because of their sexual orientation but rather because they choose social, behavioral and spiritual isolation from the rest of America. They are like immigrants from a foreign land who refuse to assimilate.

    4) Homosexual marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jim Crow era. In that case, in fact, the courts protected the majority African-American population, in some Southern states, from tyranny by a minority of white people who sought to deny the majority African-Americans the right to vote.

    5) There is no right, stipulated in the U. S. Constitution, to homosexual marriage. The Constitution itself was adopted by a majority vote.

    6) Homosexual marriage would not be essentially productive. It would be essentially destructive. It would be destructive of marriage, family and of the relationships between children and their biological parents.

    7) The real point is that homosexual equality activists are seeking to remake America for the worse by falsely claiming to be victims of discrimination. They seek to use this claim of discrimination to circumvent securing a constitutional amendment granting them the rights they seek as did African-Americans and women when they secured the right to vote through the 15th and 19th Amendments respectively.

    Your indictiment of how the majority of Americans have responded to your anti-American agenda is what is immature and unwarranted. It is our country, our liberties, our freedoms, our religious rights, our national values which you would trade off for your agenda of narrow self-interest.

    Proposition 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman.That is what marriage is and that is what Proposition 8 preserves and protects. By doing so it protects the natural nuclear family and the relationship between children and their biolgical parents. It is a dynamic law, having an impact which reverberates throughout our society.

  17. Don
    Posted December 17, 2010 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    Regan wrote: "So what's the REAL problem here?"

    The real problem here, Regan, is that homosexual behavior flies in the face of the fact that only men and women can procreate. The union of either two men or two women cannot perpetuate the species. You would have us normalize and codify behavior which is so out of harmony with the natural order of things that were it to be the only type of human relationship that the human race would eventually become extinct.

  18. Regan DuCasse
    Posted December 17, 2010 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    @Don,
    I wish you were kidding, because you seriously have distorted a lot of information there and how it's analogous to the subject at hand.
    To answer YOUR points:
    1. I was talking about INDIVIDUAL rights, and the Constitution's intentions and it's amendment regarding minorities and tyrannies, has to ALSO include,tyrannical exclusion from the same rights that ALL others have legally AND morally.

    2. Again, the rights of citizens using that majority vote to enshrine DISCRIMINATION against a minority that can have NO recourse when that discrimination damages them, then it's a wrongful amendment. Majorities aren't always RIGHT, and you are demonstrating through this amendment and the constant referral to the 'rights of the majority', that gay people do need protection from that majority.

    3. That is a distortion, and denial of facts. Gay people, do not choose to be gay. And, isolation and segregation is systemic, not by choice of gay people either. This is a SINGULAR difference and to base and entire system of discrimination ON that singular and neutral feature is wrong in the extreme and threatens gay people.
    That such a feature is indigenous AND universal to ALL human life, cultures and history, demonstrates that it's culturally and morally neutral.
    Gay people ARE assimilated to whatever culture and family they have. Shy of BEING heterosexual.

    One's religious beliefs, however, are not, and are clearly a matter of choice, yet one's religious beliefs are accorded Constitutional protection and only limited by compromise to the rights and freedoms of another.
    There is demonstrable harm to the life, livelihoods and well being of gay people on disclosure, not of their own choosing as well.
    Being heterosexual is unnecessary for gay people to assimilate. In fact, being self reliant, committing to spousal and familial responsibility, paying taxes, rearing children who have no families and serving one's country in uniform, ARE assimilating and doing so responsibly, I think we can manage and accept gay people doing ALL THAT without being heterosexual.
    The same way we accept heterosexuals NOT doing any of those things to have full equal treatment and protections.

    4. You're comparing the right to vote, with the right to marry, or associate freely and make choices for one's self reliance and family responsibility.
    One can REFUSE to vote, with no repercussions. One can refuse to marry, without much social stigma.
    It's having the CHOICE when one WANTS to do those things that matter. They are utterly personal.
    To DENY that choice is at issue, AND being denied it based on the SINGULAR feature that is not accepted. Whether it's color or sexual orientation or gender.
    One shouldn't be denied the choice based on a singular feature.

    5. You're right, there is no right to homosexual marriage. There IS however, a RIGHT TO MARRY.
    And it's THAT which is considered the most intimate and fundamental right of all. And since hets have the right to marry another het, then hom person should be able to marry another hom person. And hom persons meet and must, the same requirements that it be an adult of mutual consent who isn't already married or a close relative.
    And gay people MEET that requirement the same as an op sex couple.
    So there isn't a redefining of marriage, so much as inclusion of gay couples into well established standards. This also helps to include those of ambiguous gender whether by birth or surgery.

    6. This is a straw man, if not an OUTRIGHT LIE. Even in court, not anyone who defended 8 could prove this was true. It's not even true anywhere marriage equality has been in effect for YEARS. What op sex couples do or don't with THEIR marriages not now or ever has had anything to do with gay couples marrying.
    Gay couples marrying makes them essentially more productive and self reliant. In a crisis, they have the full legal ability to extend their intentions, benefits, protections and so on to each other AND their offspring. A survivor could inherit property and pensions, rather than be vulnerable to require welfare or some other state support. Their children would not have to become wards of the state even if there is a surviving parent to care for them.
    Nothing different would happen than happens when hets marry, than when gay people do.
    It's KEEPING them from their full potential in spousal and parental duty through marriage that makes no sense.
    PLEASE explain how a gay couple getting married, gets between an op sex couple and their children's quality of marriage or their lives.
    Yes, YOU explain it, because it's you that brought the complaint.

    7. "Claiming to be victims of discrimination". Ah, you really are going to try and say that it's never been true or doesn't exist? Prop. 8 itself is evidence of discrimination. Because Prop. 8 does nothing to protect marriage or families or children, and you don't say from WHAT they are protected.
    The discharges from the military of competent and exemplary gay soldiers and that a ban exists at all is evidence of discrimination and a different burden.
    Using religious or Biblical or social cohesion concerns are an excused used by histories most determined supremacists and segregationists. Just because the minority is different, doesn't mean it's justified any more than the others have been. It's not that the minority is the same, it's the rationalization to maintain discrimination that is.
    Wrong then, still wrong, always HAS been wrong. Whether the target was a female, black,gay or Jewish. There are many just as sure Jews are destructive (or benefit unfairly from challenging the status quo), and look what history has shown that to do to THAT minority.

    Don't you recognize YOUR indictment? Recent history demonstrates who was certain that Jews, blacks or women or gays would have that affect on society and individuals if equal rights and freedoms were realized for members of those groups
    'our' this and 'our' that.
    Really? Who ELSE in history has said that?

    And throughout it all, the targeted group for discrimination and denial of rights, over and over asserted just the opposite, and mostly to deaf ears?
    You don't like hearing that, but it's more the truth than what YOU'RE claiming.
    Then, as now...only the Constitution AND the courts that interpreted it and prevailed. Otherwise, we'd be having this conversation about overturning Jim Crow and it NEVER would have been because you share a similar mindset and conspiracy fears that gay people have it out for 'your' rights.

    Prop. 8 doesn't protect the nuclear family, nor does it protect actual marriages or families. As law, all it does is interfere with the self reliance and responsibilities that gay people have to each other and THEIR children.
    Prop. 8 does nothing but INJURE hom people who need protection from people like YOU.
    Prop. 8 is unnecessary. The nuclear family can only be protected by the people who FORMED it. It's up to the individuals involved in the marriage and the parents who chose to have the children that can protect their own.
    Obviously there is no legislation or purpose in the law that can MAKE people stay married or GET married, regardless if children are in the mix.
    Prop. 8 only damages SOME children and keeps them from having married gay or trans parents.

    So in fact, as the courts have shown, Prop. 8 puts gay couples in a similar situation as SLAVES. It keeps them from protecting each other or their children and the WHIMS OF A MAJORITY that is essentially HOSTILE.
    That proves it's not a dynamic law for the stated purpose, but an inert law that won't and can't protect ANYONE'S family.

    And Don: "the natural order" " "the natural harmony"
    are oft repeated assertions with no basis in legal, moral or ethical aspects of human progress.

    You've made a sweeping, highly generalized statement that has NOTHING to do with legal, and common law regarding marriage, family and simply being a competent and responsible citizen.
    Millions of people procreate, whether married or not, and those adults who've never had children participate in and contribute to the general welfare and support of everyone TOO.
    This is a matter of coexistence and cooperation between those with OR without children.
    What marriage has essentially been about is IDENTITY and expansion of economic benefit. It's only very recently it's been a union of equals, and treatment has been more balanced in the law. With the marriage of gay couples, this becomes an ever MORE egalitarian principle with the inclusion of situations not restricted just to orientation, gender and sex.
    Gay people, being included in the most intimate and influential of human relationships, and taking it seriously enough to go to these distances for it, are demonstrating family values, and compassionate ones.
    This is PROGRESS that will engage gay and straight people as ALLIES against greater harms.

    Just as inclusion of other minorities otherwise discriminated against ushered in greater understanding, this will too.

    I was NEVER afraid of such progress, it means we has a race are maturing and growing in intellectual AND moral ethics.
    Why are YOU so afraid?
    Gay people are not strangers to the entire of the human race, and to distrust and be hostile to gay people is something that's a TRAINED response, not a natural one.
    I don't believe for a minute, that but for having such training and being FORCED to distrust gay people, it would happen on it's own.

    And that's because it's not necessary for that to happen.

    Gay people would be some powerful allies, if only you weren't so afraid of such a thing.

  19. TC Matthews
    Posted December 17, 2010 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    "Gay people would be some powerful allies, if only you weren't so afraid of such a thing."

    It isn't a fight between "gay" people and "other" people. We're all people, and the fight over marriage does not fall on straight/gay lines. There are many of both on either side, interchangeably, and rightly so. The sooner your side drops the phobia talk and comes to the table to address the real issues, the more effective discussions will be.

  20. Don
    Posted December 17, 2010 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    @Regan:

    1) There is no right stipulated in the U. S. Constitution to homosexual marriage. If you want to attempt to secure such a right then seek a constitutional amendment as did African-Americans and women when they secured the 15th and 19th Amendments respectively.

    2) There quite simply is no "discrimination" regarding homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is what marriage is and that is what was affirmed.

    3) Homosexuals obviously do choose social, behaviorial and spiritual isolation from the rest of America and they choose to not assimilate into American culture. The approach of homosexuals is that they want the more than 97% of Americans who are heterosexual to assimilate into their culture.

    4) You seek to deny Americans the choice of continuing to define marriage as it has been defined. You don't want a "choice" which is why you don't want a vote. Instead, you want to dictate to America how it's going to be.

    5) There is a right to marry but marriage is defined as between on man and one woman. That is what "marriage" is. To accomodate homosexual "marriage" entales redefining marriage.

    6) "Marriage" between homosexuals puts an end to marriage as we know it. It destroys the nuclear family and has the effect of alienating children from their biological parents. Furthermore, the methods being used by homosexuals in seeking to attain their objectives is in and of itself destructive. It is destructive as regards the most basic and fundamental principles underlying our democracy.

    7) Propostion 8 doesn't discriminate. It preserves marriage and protects the nuclear family and the relationships between children and their biological parents.

    Now, Regan, you have attempted to draw heavily on discrimination and minorities to support you case. In so doing, you have made yourself a hypocrite. It is well documented that there is long standing discrimination practiced by homosexuals against racial minorities.

    How dare you even utter the words "minority" and "discrimination" when homosexuals have, for decades, practiced the worst kind of discrimination against other human beings simply because their skin isn't the same color as yours!

    Get off you high horse, Regan. Homosexuals have no moral authority whatsoever regarding issues of discrimination because of their own shameful history regarding racial discrimination.

  21. Jonathan
    Posted January 3, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    @Don

    1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" If two people want to have a gay marriage, and it makes them happy doing so, then by this passage, they have every right to. In practice, Americans should have the right to do whatever they please as long as nobody else's rights are being harmed or infringed upon.

    2. That's the definition of a Christian marriage. This country has separation of church and state, so non-religious marriage doesn't have to be between a man and a woman.

    3. Majority is not always right (see slavery, the fight for women's and civil rights, etc.)

    4. But you're also denying gays the right to define marriage in such a way as to include us. Don't be hypocritical about this, because you're dictating to America how it's going to be as well.

    5. All Americans, under the Constitution, deserve equal rights. Marrying the person you truly love falls under the seeking of "life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness". If the current "definition" of marriage doesn't allow those inalienable rights, then maybe it needs to be changed.

    6. What does childhood have to do with marriage? Couples get married without having kids, and couples have kids without getting married. SSM has no effect on children because marriage and giving birth are not a duel action.

    7. It does discriminate, because it denies the LGBT community from marrying the person they love, therefore denying them the 1100+ rights that come with the word marriage. Again, the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" come into this point.

    I know you weren't even talking to me or anything, but I felt the need to educate you a little bit on the true definitions of rights and discrimination