or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple applauds US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple applauds US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage - Page 2

post #41 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post

 

What's next? Marriage equality for polygamists? For human-animal couples?

I don't support it, I don't like it, but if three consenting adults want to have a mutual relationship between each other... why should the government stop them?

 

The government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.

 

Additionally, it is very stupid to compare same-sex couples with human-animal couples. Same sex couples are two consenting adults, where as the example you mentioned is abusing an animal that doesn't have the ability to reason.

post #42 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

You'd think Cook & Co. would have more important things to worry about. 1rolleyes.gif

 

Yes, because worrying about a box full of wires is more important than civil rights. 

 

I think you need to look at your priorities if the next iPad means more to your than human rights.

post #43 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws."  Look it up.  

So why aren't we protecting polygamists? Or for that matter polyandrous? I'd like to go fishing this weekend while that other guy mows the lawn.

post #44 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

My view is that the only real purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children in a stable environment with both sexes.  Therefore I am against anything other than civil unions in other cases.  That said, I think government should not even be involved in marriage, after all a marriage license is always a threesome, three parties:  the couple and government.  Marriage should be a private institution and stay out of government all together!  

 

It seems just about the same sex marriage pushers just want the bennies, which will just raise the prices and lower the wages for everyone ultimately.  Then anyone who are roommates will "get married", just for the benefits...  uggh.  :(

 

 

Then what about all those couples that don't have kid or can't have kids??? Your saying you favor nullifying their marriage after say 12 months if not producing kids? And don't give me that "possibility of kids" BS...

 

Oh, please actually learn your history before speaking... marriage was around way before religion, it is not the government that should remove it's self it would be religion. Back when people got married they would have a town gathering where everyone used to come. When the towns got to large, the only place big enough for ceremonies usually were the churches. Even today, priest are given temporary notary powers to sign the marriage licence. You don't need a priest, you can go down to your town hall have a judge marry you... no religion necessary.

 

Befits that go along with marriage, many of the 1200+ of them do not involve kids. Legal right to property bought together, medical decisions, etc. List goes on and on. And I know multiple couples that are married "just for benefits" and don't have kids. My aunt is one of them. Divorced and remarried to the same guy 4 times over the years, and it is just "for the benefits" because she can't have kids. I know multiple same sex couples been together 20+ years and are always worried because they are not married that if something happens to one of them, their family can come in and take everything and leave the other one out in the cold with nothing, because they are not married and have that protection. And before you say "there is legal paperwork", yep gets thrown out of court or not even paid attention too. You can Google the CA case about housing, and TN for the medical. Both couples had all the paperwork and both times the paperwork was just ignored.

 

So from your name I take it your to be a conservative? Then need I remind you that conservatives are for smaller government and person responsibility. Which means government should not be tell anyone who they can or can't marry. And it should be up to the individual to marry whom they wish.

 

As for topic - Apple has every right to make any time of statements they want to make. It is up to you to decide if you want to keep doing business with them due to it. I for one have many corps I do not buy anything from due to their practices, or public statements. I commend Apple for believing in equality in everything not just something for some people.

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply
post #45 of 161

I think that civil unions should be afforded the same benefits as the legal aspect of married people.  Also, dissolving a civil union should be the same as a divorce from the legal aspect.  The fact that states are trying to eliminate legal benefits unless the union is called a marriage is where the problem lies.  The states are just trying to avoid the only aspect of a marriage they have a say in by lumping it all into the union called marriage.  Allow civil unions to have the same rights and privileges as marriage under the law, then there won't be an issue here with the term marriage.

post #46 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexmarrero View Post

I don't support it, I don't like it, but if three consenting adults want to have a mutual relationship between each other... why should the government stop them?

 

The government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.

 

Additionally, it is very stupid to compare same-sex couples with human-animal couples. Same sex couples are two consenting adults, where as the example you mentioned is abusing an animal that doesn't have the ability to reason.

 

Who are you to judge what is "stupid"? You "should stay out of people's lives as much as possible".

 

Give everybody equal rights - it is democracy! 

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
post #47 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamacguy View Post

So why aren't we protecting polygamists? Or for that matter polyandrous? I'd like to go fishing this weekend while that other guy mows the lawn.

 

That's right, why not? It looks like clear discrimination.

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
post #48 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post

Who are you to judge what is "stupid"? You "should stay out of people's lives as much as possible".

Give everybody equal rights - it is democracy! 

RIght! Cause animals are people too and protected under the Bill of...... The US Const......
post #49 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamacguy View Post

So why aren't we protecting polygamists? Or for that matter polyandrous?

I'm OK with the first but the latter is just whack...
post #50 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Really? "Human rights"?  The "right" to pay more taxes?  The "right" to... what exactly?  No where in any part of the US Constitution does it say marriage is a "right" nor should they be involved in what the definition of marriage is in the first place.

I have a feeling you think human rights only exists in America.
post #51 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


RIght! Cause animals are people too and protected under the Bill of...... The US Const......

 

But people are protected and may be they would want this kind of rights.

 

One can argue, that the fact that animals are not protected, does not mean that this is right and fair. At times even people-minorities and women were not protected by the US Constitution.  


Edited by mercury99 - 6/26/13 at 4:24pm

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
post #52 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

This thread could go south anytime.

 

In record time....

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post

 

What's next? Marriage equality for polygamists? For human-animal couples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justamacguy View Post

So why aren't we protecting polygamists? Or for that matter polyandrous? I'd like to go fishing this weekend while that other guy mows the lawn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

It seems just about the same sex marriage pushers just want the bennies, which will just raise the prices and lower the wages for everyone ultimately.  Then anyone who are roommates will "get married", just for the benefits...  uggh.  :(

Nothing like a bit of same sex-nes to bring the whackos out of the closet 1smile.gif

post #53 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Set aside the social issue, banning same sex marriage in California negatively effected Apple.
How?
Quote:
Apple is at a competitive disadvantage if its gay employees cannot share their benefits with their spouses
Apple's gay employees have been able to include their significant other in full benefits since ~1992.
Quote:
The problem with civil unions is states like California wrote the anti gay marriage legislation to disallow same sex couples to share employee benefits made available to married people.
It's not "disallowed". It's simply that is is not mandated by the state.
Any company/local government can allow full benefits to gay employees/partners if they wish.
Edited by Chris_CA - 6/26/13 at 5:04pm
post #54 of 161

What's most interesting (and ironic) here is that, I'll bet that many, most or all of the people patting Apple on the back for speaking out on this subject are the same people who (privately or publicly) were bitching about and denouncing the CEO of Chic-fil-a for expressing his opinion on the subject of same-gender marriage.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #55 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What's most interesting (and ironic) here is that, I'll bet that many, most or all of the people patting Apple on the back for speaking out on this subject are the same people who (privately or publicly) were bitching about and denouncing the CEO of Chic-fil-a for expressing his opinion on the subject of same-gender marriage.
BAM!
QTF
post #56 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

This is a sad day for America. God's goodness and truth continue to be pushed to the curb. It will come back to bite us in the butt - like ignoring the "Danger no smoking or open flames" at a gas station or jumping out of a plane with the belief that gravity does not exist. Foolish and deadly.

I get tired of "Christians" (and goes with other religions as well, but as a Christian, I'll just mention it) that think its a good idea to use law to force Christian principles on other people.

 

Jesus told us to spread the news and teach people... help lead them to Jesus and get them saved... not to form some Christian nation where you can live comfortably and force your views on everyone else.

 

Trying to force Christian views on other people does the exact opposite of what we are supposed to do... it turns people away from the Lord.  People have the right to make their own decisions.  Jesus doesn't force himself on anyone, and we aren't here to be forceful either.

 

If the majority of the people want to allow Gay Marriage, then it should be allowed.  I think people mix up legal/illegal with right/wrong too much.  Legal doesn't mean something is right... illegal doesn't mean its wrong.

post #57 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123 View Post

I get tired of "Christians" (and goes with other religions as well, but as a Christian, I'll just mention it) that think its a good idea to use law to force Christian principles on other people.

 

I'll go one better:

 

I get tired of anyone (regardless of religious belief or political persuasion) that think it's a good idea to use law to force their principles on other people.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #58 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambira View Post

I think that civil unions should be afforded the same benefits as the legal aspect of married people.  Also, dissolving a civil union should be the same as a divorce from the legal aspect.  The fact that states are trying to eliminate legal benefits unless the union is called a marriage is where the problem lies.  The states are just trying to avoid the only aspect of a marriage they have a say in by lumping it all into the union called marriage.  Allow civil unions to have the same rights and privileges as marriage under the law, then there won't be an issue here with the term marriage.


Well put.  Marriage originated as a religious rite, so by getting into the business of marriage, the Government is crossing the church/state divide, which is a two-way separation BTW.  I have no problems with civil unions and agree that they should be afforded the same protections as marriage.  Some people would say it's just a question of semantics, but I see it as something with a deeper meaning.

post #59 of 161

LOL, no, you do have a point there!   ;)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho View Post

 

Are you suggesting that marriages of convenience are a phenomenon unique to same-sex couples?

post #60 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Really? "Human rights"?  The "right" to pay more taxes?  The "right" to... what exactly?  No where in any part of the US Constitution does it say marriage is a "right" nor should they be involved in what the definition of marriage is in the first place.


Married folks pay MORE taxes?  Last I checked, married folks actually pay LESS in combined taxes compared to individuals filing single with like wages and deductions.

post #61 of 161
Makes me more happy to be a customer of Apple.
post #62 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarfungo View Post

Married folks pay MORE taxes?

 

Sometimes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #63 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBum View Post


Marriage originated as a religious rite.

 

Marriage predates religion. Get your facts right.

post #64 of 161
This has nothing to do with apple's business and as a shareholder, I feel this is detrimental to apple. I'm indifferent to the Supreme Court decision but for Apple to be issuing statements and comments on the issue will only piss off potential customers that are against this. I see religious schools choosing not to buy iPads for their students because of Apple being viewed in their eyes as a supporter of sin. Stay out of this crap and do what you do best%u2026 create, build, and sell awesome products.
post #65 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Yeah, I know that Tim Cook is gay, but so what? I don't care what who he is.

 

His personal preferences situation or personal life should not be a part of Apple's official policies, in my opinion.

 

I fixed that for you.

post #66 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

I fixed that for you.

 

The mistake you have made, however is that in saying you have "fixed" you have implied that what was said was wrong. Do you have any special knowledge that would support this implication? Probably not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #67 of 161

Procreation and raising children is in my view the real legitimate reason to marry, anything else is out of convenience, benefits, money, or something else.  

 

We should all realize there is a difference between what individuals believe, and what is law or public policy.  Of course individuals can hold beliefs separate from what policy is -- it is an opinion.  

 

Government in this situation, like most others, is the problem and never the solution!  I said marriage should be a private matter, I did not say anything about religion -- that was you.  

 

No I am for liberty in both social and economic matters, which is different than a conservative.

 

 

It is deplorable that Cook did not stand up more strongly to government's FAR excessive taxation levels in this country, as Apple knows well and had an opportunity to make a much stronger statement to the Senate subcommittee.  Instead makes statements about this which is far less important.  Why, because if everyone paid far less taxes, they would have far more disposable income available, and bennies would be far less a driver for marriage, etc.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkBlade View Post

 

 

Then what about all those couples that don't have kid or can't have kids??? Your saying you favor nullifying their marriage after say 12 months if not producing kids? And don't give me that "possibility of kids" BS...

 

Oh, please actually learn your history before speaking... marriage was around way before religion, it is not the government that should remove it's self it would be religion. Back when people got married they would have a town gathering where everyone used to come. When the towns got to large, the only place big enough for ceremonies usually were the churches. Even today, priest are given temporary notary powers to sign the marriage licence. You don't need a priest, you can go down to your town hall have a judge marry you... no religion necessary.

 

Befits that go along with marriage, many of the 1200+ of them do not involve kids. Legal right to property bought together, medical decisions, etc. List goes on and on. And I know multiple couples that are married "just for benefits" and don't have kids. My aunt is one of them. Divorced and remarried to the same guy 4 times over the years, and it is just "for the benefits" because she can't have kids. I know multiple same sex couples been together 20+ years and are always worried because they are not married that if something happens to one of them, their family can come in and take everything and leave the other one out in the cold with nothing, because they are not married and have that protection. And before you say "there is legal paperwork", yep gets thrown out of court or not even paid attention too. You can Google the CA case about housing, and TN for the medical. Both couples had all the paperwork and both times the paperwork was just ignored.

 

So from your name I take it your to be a conservative? Then need I remind you that conservatives are for smaller government and person responsibility. Which means government should not be tell anyone who they can or can't marry. And it should be up to the individual to marry whom they wish.

 

As for topic - Apple has every right to make any time of statements they want to make. It is up to you to decide if you want to keep doing business with them due to it. I for one have many corps I do not buy anything from due to their practices, or public statements. I commend Apple for believing in equality in everything not just something for some people.

post #68 of 161

Looks like you act like a wacko with a reality distortion field if you don't understand more of the real reasons many people marry!  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

 

Nothing like a bit of same sex-nes to bring the whackos out of the closet 1smile.gif

post #69 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Looks like you act like a wacko with a reality distortion field if you don't understand more of the real reasons many people marry!  

 

 

If I don't understand something how can that make me a whacko? It might make me dumb but whacko? And you are misusing the term 'reality distortion field'. You have failed to understand its meaning and I therefore feel certain you don't know its origin as applied to Steve Jobs which is kinda sad seeing as you are using it against me because I don't agree with you. Oh, and you just entirely neutralized your own 'argument' by using the word 'many'. And to cap it off, with a forum name such as yours, spouting forth bigotry and prejudice you truly do confirm yourself as a 'whacko'. 

post #70 of 161

It was to call out your nonsensical use of wacko ad hominem attacking.  I attributed it to your actions.  

 

Jobs has nothing to do with your reality distortion field, stay on topic.  No bigotry here, but considering how you present no real contribution to the topic, I don't see your value here.  Further, there is no prejudice, since my original post was based in reason, clearly you exhibit very little.  

 

Unfortunately, marriage as an institution has become mostly a joke in this country, and it just continues down that path...

 

If you need some food for thought, there is an entire magazine devoted to it:

Reason Magazine

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

If I don't understand something how can that make me a whacko? It might make me dumb but whacko? And you are misusing the term 'reality distortion field'. You have failed to understand its meaning and I therefore feel certain you don't know its origin as applied to Steve Jobs which is kinda sad seeing as you are using it against me because I don't agree with you. Oh, and you just entirely neutralized your own 'argument' by using the word 'many'. And to cap it off, with a forum name such as yours, spouting forth bigotry and prejudice you truly do confirm yourself as a 'whacko'. 

post #71 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post

But people are protected and may be they would want this kind of rights.

One can argue, that the fact that animals are not protected, does not mean that this is right and fair. At times even people-minorities and women were not protected by the US Constitution.  

Domesticated partners? Reckon some municipalities will have to update ordinances with the times. Only livestock allowed in my city limits consist of chickens and roosters. Perhaps individuals will apply for a license at Parks and Wildlife? Department of Interior?

For clarification - I am not the one agreeing that Human:Human is a valid parallel with Human:[insert four-legged creature here].

Sincerely,
Devil B. Advocate
Edited by ChristophB - 6/26/13 at 7:41pm
post #72 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

Marriage predates religion. Get your facts right.

Citation?

Edit: Given religion is basically defined as the belief and worship of a controlling power, it's hard to imagine pre-that, I'd call it a tie.
Edited by ChristophB - 6/26/13 at 8:38pm
post #73 of 161

In the U.S., only the rich got protected and treated well, and governs the 99%.

post #74 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarfungo View Post


Married folks pay MORE taxes?  Last I checked, married folks actually pay LESS in combined taxes compared to individuals filing single with like wages and deductions.

Depends on pre-married income, married couple may pay more or less.  Say a couple making $100k each with itemized deductions and mortgate of $600k each, they will pay more taxes filing married joined.  However, if only 1 of the couple is making $100k, then definitely will pay less tax after married.

 

Generally, tax code doesn't treat a couple as 2 persons for deductions, more like 1.5 persons.  A lot of the deductions phase out not at 2 x single rate but less than that.

 

More details see:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

 

IRS is counting on the same-sex marriage to get more taxes out of those people.


Edited by ipen - 6/26/13 at 10:02pm
post #75 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post

This is a sad day for America. God's goodness and truth continue to be pushed to the curb. It will come back to bite us in the butt - like ignoring the "Danger no smoking or open flames" at a gas station or jumping out of a plane with the belief that gravity does not exist. Foolish and deadly.

Goood ill be glad. Lets keep pushing him away. Voluntarily pushing religion aside is bound to have positive effects...like not getting into other countries' religious wars.....and the list goes on. Lets push god in a closet.

post #76 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


Citation?

Edit: Given religion is basically defined as the belief and worship of a controlling power, it's hard to imagine pre-that, I'd call it a tie.

Google it. It certainly predates christianity, islam etc...

post #77 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Google it. It certainly predates christianity, islam etc...

Some not equal all. I don't need to google that.
post #78 of 161
So let me get this straight,
Is apple applauding the fact that the supreme court basically sided with Gov Brown and Attorney General Harris on NOT doing the job the the PEOPLE elected them to do.

LETS SEE IF APPLE IS HAPPY WHEN COURTS STOP HEARING APPLES CASES THAT ARE AGAINST APPLE BEFORE THEY GET TO SCOTUS!

Apple, I have your products, I DONT NEET YOUR JUDGEMENT!
post #79 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post

 

What's next? Marriage equality for polygamists? For human-animal couples?

 

I see know reason why polyamorous relationships should not be formally acknowledged. I know two triads within my social network and they are lovely people.
 
I think you would have great difficulty establishing mutual informed consent in the second instance.
post #80 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What's most interesting (and ironic) here is that, I'll bet that many, most or all of the people patting Apple on the back for speaking out on this subject are the same people who (privately or publicly) were bitching about and denouncing the CEO of Chic-fil-a for expressing his opinion on the subject of same-gender marriage.

Yes pretty much. The chic-fil-a guy is just on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. When people arent treated equally under the the law they tend to get pissed and are willing to protest, like with chic fil a. Its tougher to get people to protest a company (Apple) when they are promoting treating people equally.

One of them has to be wrong on this issue. So there is no irony that I see.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple applauds US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage