or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle - Page 6

post #201 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf the Semi-Coherent View Post

Sigh... I couldn't let this pass. As an active participant in the fight against Prop 8, I can say that NONE of the people I work with have voiced ANYTHING like the points you've listed.

Please provide links to reputable news sources for these outrageous claims.

GTSC

Those are talking point that have been handed out at LDS and Fundamentalist churches. They are easy to debunk too - in fact a BYU professor just did.

Here is a PDF file that goes point by point with references showing the Yes on 8 side is lying to its supporters and using fear.

http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Thurston-Memo.pdf
post #202 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by YTV View Post

Wow this really sucks for Apple.

Can't believe they would back such a morally reprehensible act.

Now we know Steve doesn't have cancer, he most likely has AIDS.

Die. Steve. Die.

Why such hatred?

Usually people hate gays because they are afraid of becomming "infected" or overturned to "the dark side" them selves. It seems you are very afraid or not really secure in your own sexuallity. Why you would ever want someone to die, because they speak out their opinion is beyond me??? I know it´s words... But come on! Just don´t buy Apple products if you disagree.

I applaud Apple for this move! I´m not gay but still.. today I appriciate them even more. A bold and humane move on their part! Adult Individuals should allways have the freedom to chose whom to love. Anything else is discimination.
I love the snappiness - I adore the sazzyness - I need the intuitive
Reply
I love the snappiness - I adore the sazzyness - I need the intuitive
Reply
post #203 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotek2001 View Post

Furthermore, gay marriage means the legal right to the financial, tax and social entitlement benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy by commiting to one other person and sticking with them. It's not just an gimmick, it's a hugely important issue to gay people and their families. Apple (and Google) are to be congratulated for looking out for the rights of their employees.

On the other hand, many if not all of these legal rights have already been extended to gay couples in California.

I see the real issue as the gay community wanting to take over the term "marriage" be domestic partner" or civil union just isn't good enough, even if it includes all the rights and privileges of "marriage."

Personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and reclassify everything as a civil union, thus leaving "marriage" as a purely religious institution/rite. That would be the ultimate separation of church and state over this issue.

I thought the point of government providing special rights and privileges to married couples was to provide some incentive for couples to stick together when when things in the relationship get difficult, for the benefit of hopefully providing a more stable environment for any minor children. But since that seems to have become mostly irrelevant or disregarded in today's society, what is the point of the government continuing to provide privileges to maintain and protect the "marriage" institution. Nowadays so many heterosexual couples never marry, so many children are illegitimate or live in single parent homes due to divorce, what is the point of getting "married?" For a child today to have had a father and a mother married to each other from the time of his/her birth until he/she reaches adulthood, has become the exception instead of the rule.

I maintain the the institution of marriage as outlived it's usefulness as far as government sanction and protection goes. Because of that, I can't fathom why it is so important for the gay community to be able to call their civil unions "marriages."
post #204 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by emoney35 View Post

He also stood up for God's moral values. Jesus/God was against murder, adultery, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. Also, pertaining to this thread, he considered homosexuality immoral.

Murder.

Now you'd think that if fundamentalist christians cared a darn about morals, they would be against murder.

Where have you all been the last ten years while good heterosexual families were being slaughtered by our government?

Did you vote him back into power afterwards too?

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #205 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by federmoose View Post

ugh. and if you don't believe in God...
and furthermore, why legislate your beliefs? I know you believe God doesn't want gays to marry... but why does that affect whether our country or state should allow them to? If God disapproves of an action, let Him deal with it, you don't have to.

If it were only that easy..."Live and let live", as the saying goes...

From my understanding...if gay marriage is passed, that means all ordained ministers would have to marry gay couples, or risk facing lawsuits.

People preach about separation of church and state all the time. I say good; keep them separate. If gay marriage is put into law, you have by default merged the church and the state.
post #206 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

Well I think it's a good thing that Apple is loosing customers. They should never have tied them up in the first place. Come on Mr H you're slacking!

I missed that too! You made my day -- and after hearing the gays made SJ take the Firewire off the Macbook and won't let him release the headless xMac. What is the world coming to?
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #207 of 1350
I had to join to comment on this. Though I think everything has been said. I think the thread says a lot about the state of the country than Apple. As for the world degrading over the last 100 years as one poster commented- I think a lot of it is to do with the US not seeming to want to move forward.

As for marriage being the bedrock of western civilisation, since when? How long have humans been around? You're comparing a small fraction of time to that?

As you can tell I'm not religious. I don't quite hate it. I went to a church of england primary school. I think as you grow and learn you do just that. Religions are the causes of wars. I think enough said.

I'm glad Apple has done this. It shows that they are forward thinking. As for the other chap(s) that said they won't be buying anything else from Apple; if that was a problem then why is it that the share prices were up when I checked a few minutes ago?

I'm proud to have never owned a windows machine in the past 20years of using computers!
post #208 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by stustanley View Post

According to a group of Italian researchers, the genes that make men gay evolved because they actually make their female relatives more fertile.

The team discovered that the mothers, aunts and sisters of gay men tend to have more children than those women related to straight men.

Science disagrees

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oc...ation.research

Aww, shucks. *I* was going to post that! \


I say, go apple.
post #209 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

Please learn the proper use of words before you use them.

Unethical = not morally correct.

If you feel that it's moral to discriminate against someone because of something they are born with, like their skin colour, then so be it. I'd pray for you, but I have no idea what God that would be or if their even is one. Instead I'll just hope you learn some tolerance in this lifetime.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #210 of 1350
Everyone knows coolness belongs to Mac. Even if a PC wanted to be called a Mac it still wouldn't be a Mac. (In fact, Apple would sue that PC.) PCs are intrinsically closer to Macs than gay unions are to traditional marriage. I have nothing against someone who says they're gay. Can't we all be friends? But to call a gay union a marriage is simply a misnomer. It isn't - and it will never provide what a traditional marriage provides to society and to the partners themselves. As a big Apple fan, I'm disappointed Apple went PC on this issue. (Also - kind of a one-sided article AI . . . you're better than that.)
post #211 of 1350
Hey! Does this explain why there's been religious advertising on this page all day?

Am I the last person to have made the connection?

( Darn, just as i said that it turned to Google Chrome. )

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #212 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

Murder.

Now you'd think that if fundamentalist christians cared a darn about morals, they would be against murder.

Where have you all been the last ten years while good heterosexual families were being slaughtered by our government?

Did you vote him back into power afterwards too?

I like how you assume that I'm a republican. I didn't vote for Bush, if that's what you're implying.

I'm not sure how Christianity and Republicans got tied to each other, anyways? In reality, Democrats are pro-abortion, pro-gay rights... Republicans are pro-war, and don't give a rip about the lower class and poor.

Please tell me...how can a Christian be associated with either side?? When it comes down to it, you just end up picking the lesser evil.
post #213 of 1350
'That claim prompted California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell to announce that the proposition "has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful."'

Hmmm... what about the Massachusetts case where second grade teachers started reading storybooks about princes marrying princes. When the parents asked about it, they were told that the book was required and that they would not be told when the subject would be discussed. The courts sided with the school. (Massachusetts is in a similar legal position with regard to gay marriage as California right now)

http://www.protectmarriage.com/video/view/6

How is that for changes in education? It sounds like the California Superintendent is misinformed and it's regrettable that AppleInsider is so obviously one-sided on this issue.
post #214 of 1350
I can understand why some people may get upset by Apple's decision (although I support it) on aiding the no voters of the proposition, but what I fail to comprehend is the sheer shortsightedness of some people posting ridiculous junk in panic attacks at how homosexual unions might and will affect the american kids, turning them to the 'dark side of the force' or whatever.
Again, I understand why the Catholic Church denies marriage of the same sex couples, since it's the most conservative institution to date (with one of the most numerous cases of pedophilia in history, way to go), but to seek refuge in the will of good old God is just plain weak.
How about Eve being Adam's sister? Either they had some high tech manufactorium to confect the human race, or they had sex. Incest, anyone?
Personally, I know a lot gay people and I can safely say that they are no better or worse than your average Joe. So, please be tolerant.
post #215 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacMan View Post

Everyone knows coolness belongs to Mac. Even if a PC wanted to be called a Mac it still wouldn't be a Mac. (In fact, Apple would sue that PC.) PCs are intrinsically closer to Macs than gay unions are to traditional marriage. I have nothing against someone who says they're gay. Can't we all be friends? But to call a gay union a marriage is simply a misnomer. It isn't - and it will never provide what a traditional marriage provides to society and to the partners themselves. As a big Apple fan, I'm disappointed Apple went PC on this issue. (Also - kind of a one-sided article AI . . . you're better than that.)

I think that if gay couples had the same legal rights as straight couples, we would see no difference in what a traditional marriage provides to society.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #216 of 1350
This is just awful news. I'm not a republican but I also don't support gay marriage which I am firmly convinced is a perverted lifestyle. Having said that, I also would not get my company involved in support of Prop. 8. I feel this is for individuals and not the place of companies like Apple. What Apple and Google are doing is wrong. I would also be disappointed if the two companies were in support of Prop. 8. It's simply not their place to use their influences in that manner.

I believe that the bible is still the Word of God today and the consequences for sin has not changed. The end of these types of perverted lifestyles, pornography and child porn included is eternal separation from God in hell fire: Romans 6:23 & Genesis 19.
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
post #217 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

You have no clue if Jesus or God was against homosexuality.

It has never been a part of Christianity that Jesus or God wrote the Bible.

You obviously don't understand why the Bible has come to be what it is.

Believing in something and understanding history can be separate. I can understand the Mormon religion, but not believe in it.

You don't have to believe in the Bible to understand the historical value that it has.
post #218 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If you feel that it's moral to discriminate against someone because of something they are born with,

Careful with proclaiming that someone is born with homosexual tendencies. The jury is still very much out on that issue. Even Kinsey noted that sexual preferences seemed to be rather malleable.
post #219 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacMan View Post

Everyone knows coolness belongs to Mac. Even if a PC wanted to be called a Mac it still wouldn't be a Mac. (In fact, Apple would sue that PC.) PCs are intrinsically closer to Macs than gay unions are to traditional marriage. I have nothing against someone who says they're gay. Can't we all be friends? But to call a gay union a marriage is simply a misnomer. It isn't - and it will never provide what a traditional marriage provides to society and to the partners themselves. As a big Apple fan, I'm disappointed Apple went PC on this issue. (Also - kind of a one-sided article AI . . . you're better than that.)

Yup, Hallelujah to that! Both Macs and PC's are... computers. Though some bigots may call the PC a 'sub computer' we are tolerant and know this not to be true. A Gay marriage on the other hand is TOTALLY different from a 'Real' marriage because ... because ... well, they are both marriages but everybody knows damned well that certain gay acts are sub human. And those acts when performed within the holy matrimonial union of REAL marriage they are not spoken of. In fact I didn't hear a thing and it never really happened. But can't we be friends... please? Just don't get too close, faggot... I mean, friend.
post #220 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's simple. Government has no business whatsoever being involved in the issue of marriage as a religious ceremony, but since they are it's discriminatory.

Gov't needs to get out of the "marriage business". I consider it a legal contract, the whole church involvement thing is just thousands of years of hocus-pocus sprinkled on top.

I don't understand why this idea is ignored. Other laws protect children and against contractual fraud.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #221 of 1350
Regardless of how any of us personally feel about gay marriage, this is a smart business move for Apple.

Why?

We are in an economic recession. The smartest business move is to cater to people who can afford to buy your products. Are all homosexuals rich? Goodness no, but the median income for homosexual households is significantly higher than that of heterosexual households.

Sources:
http://www.glcensus.org/downloads/GenRelease.htm
http://www.witeckcombs.com/news/rele...uyingpower.pdf
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/25/maga...gedin_fortune/


Apple isn't the first company to figure this out. Many companies have been advertising to homosexuals for years. Budweiser and Levi are the first two brands that come to my mind.

http://www.aef.com/industry/news/data/2006/6076

Levi's Ad
Straight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43uI5QL0dXs
Gay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTP1K3Vu3r8

Wamu:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...oynyc/WaMu.jpg

Absolute:
http://www.mysummerwithoutpeanutbutt...olutePride.jpg

Other Misc:
http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/gays.htm
http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gend...es/lesbian.htm
post #222 of 1350
Heres the thing.....
We already voted on this in california. WE BANNED GAY MARRIAGE. Then 4 stupid liberal judges on the 9nth circuit overturned our votes.

We will BAN it again. YES ON 8 signs are EVERYWHERE in socal, i have yet to see a NO ON 8 sign. I think it will be a landslide vote. Im predicting 65/35.


And apple.... I love your products, but I will never purchase another NEW one again.
post #223 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbh0001 View Post

Careful with proclaiming that someone is born with homosexual tendencies. The jury is still very much out on that issue. Even Kinsey noted that sexual preferences seemed to be rather malleable.

I wouldn't exactly call NARTH a neutral source of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH
post #224 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariofreak85 View Post

We are in an economic recession. The smartest business move is to cater to people who can afford to buy your products. Are all homosexuals rich? Goodness no, but the median income for homosexual households is significantly higher than that of heterosexual households.

That may be true, but as anyone can see from the inconsistent views of the Apple users on this matter, they may lose more customers than they would otherwise gain from the small 2% (or whatever number) community.
post #225 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by WESALLEN View Post

Heres the thing.....
And apple.... I love your products, but I will never purchase another NEW one again.

And that's what I was talking about
post #226 of 1350
I applaud Apple and Google for taking a stand on this very important civil rights issue. It's disturbing enough that none of the candidates for office talk at length about it. Somebody has to stand up for the 10% or so of us who happen to fall in love with members of the same sex. I mean, 1 in 10 is not a tiny number. It's definitely in the minority, but a tenth of the population ain't nothing.

Anyway, there's no use in trying to school angry, close-minded, heartless folks like frugality and 3rd reich (perfect names, guys!)
post #227 of 1350
Careful now, don't rub your new man-crush on John Hodgeman in our faces.
post #228 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by WESALLEN View Post

And apple.... I love your products, but I will never purchase another NEW one again.

Get over yourself, will ya. What are you going to do if gay marriage is not banned? Where will you move to?
post #229 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbh0001 View Post

Careful with proclaiming that someone is born with homosexual tendencies. The jury is still very much out on that issue. Even Kinsey noted that sexual preferences seemed to be rather malleable.

I would agree that being born gay isn't scientifically verified, but I would argue that the only logical alternative is a post-birth sub-conscientious acclimation.

Something else to ponder, could homosexuality in society not be based on a law of averages, but be a sliding scale where the percentage of homosexual offspring will increase as societies become more dense and resources become less scarce. That goes back to a Darwinian explanation, but we have evidence of gender ambiguity in humans and gender switching in simpler animals.

Or how about the evidence that the use of phosphates in soaps and detergents that we use excessively these days for washing our hair, body, clothes and everything we eat off of, become runoff into lakes and rivers and is causing some male fish to become female. Are your testes shrinking? Do you own a Mac? Are you a straight male who has been defined as metrosexual?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #230 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by emoney35 View Post

If it were only that easy..."Live and let live", as the saying goes...

From my understanding...if gay marriage is passed, that means all ordained ministers would have to marry gay couples, or risk facing lawsuits.

People preach about separation of church and state all the time. I say good; keep them separate. If gay marriage is put into law, you have by default merged the church and the state.

then spend your million of advertising dollars getting that law changed. Seems like a slightly more reasonable solution.
post #231 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by polanski View Post

That may be true, but as anyone can see from the inconsistent views of the Apple users on this matter, they may lose more customers than they would otherwise gain from the small 2% (or whatever number) community.

Loose: A few customers who buy computers every few years because that's how often they can afford to.

Gain: Many customers who have a higher disposable income and who are willing and able purchase new computers and accessories on a more frequent basis.

All of the gay men I know have the latest and greatest tech gadgets, just because they like to have the latest and greatest. Go to a gay club some time and see what kinds of phones people pull out of their pockets. In my experience most of them have iPhones, however I do live in a more tech savvy area (SF Bay Area)
post #232 of 1350
Publicly traded companies should put that money to a Board Vote if they are feeling so compasionate about any issues. If the board authorizes and endorses it, then they should have it in the proxy vote for future shareholder meetings. The money should have been done through private individuals.

This goes for any issues that are outside the constructs of the corporate business model.

I personally had many Apple and NeXT colleagues who are gay; and like us heterosexuals come in all shapes and sizes.

If two people want to join in a formally recognized institutional ceremony, so be it. Having done it twice, every person has the innate right to discover for themselves if they see the merit in it.

I tried twice and don't see it's value.
post #233 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariofreak85 View Post

Loose: A few customers who buy computers every few years because that's how often they can afford to.

Gain: Many customers who have a higher disposable income and who are willing and able purchase new computers and accessories on a more frequent basis.

All of the gay men I know have the latest and greatest tech gadgets, just because they like to have the latest and greatest. Go to a gay club some time and see what kinds of phones people pull out of their pockets. In my experience more most of them have iPhones, however I do live in a more tech savvy area (SF Bay Area)

Yes, I'm not questioning this fact, it's just, as I said, the more fanatical fan base of Apple will more likely get turned off by their move on the proposition, therefore boycotting their products, as some here have already quoted at doing so.
But then again, I pray my room mate's (gay) cousin, who's a frequent visitor to our flat, is going to stop by with a brand new iPhone, so I can get my hands on it
post #234 of 1350
It's probably been said many times, but I skipped pages 3-5 (as interesting as it was).

First, my 2c - morality is what people hide behind when they don't want to accept that this is a human/civil rights issue. As others have said, once upon a time in a galaxy not very far away, white supremacy was moral, as was lynching, witch burning, forced chastity belts etc. and menstruation, being female, inter-racial marriage, eating pork or being non-white was immoral or sub-human. You can teach morality to your kids but not intolerance - at least not without some counter-argument from society, usually via the schools. Being gay is no different than being a woman, Chinese, French, black, red, physically-challenged, etc. - they are all states of being, to be afforded equal rights with white hetero males.

Anyway - to the more substantive part... I just got an email from my company (big CA tech co) about their efforts to get benefits cheats (claiming ineligible dependents etc.) and I expanded the section about valid spouses and family units for eligibility.
The easy ones were "Married-Hetero", "Married-Homo", "Civil Union-Homo" - some legal paper declaring the legality and eligibility of the union. Then came the kicker... For those in states with no legal same-sex partnership agreements there were 7 specific concurrent criteria identified to declare a couple in an eligible partnership. This includes California (especially if they win prop 8). What a right royal pain in the arse to verify/validate all those to prove eligibility - either you spend money to check every criteria or you accept a level of possible fraud (Chuck and Larry style ;-)

I know this doesn't mean that "marriage" is the only way (civil unions would work) but prop 8 is the slippery slope to opposing all legal same-sex relationships which is exactly what the religious types want.
Bottom line - it is just much easier to manage benefits for "minority" situations (an enormous pain for large companies where exception processing takes 80% of the time) when the state gives them a definitive piece of paper.

GO APPLE! Reduce HR costs, increase profits!
post #235 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

Thou shalt not kill.

Your government REVELS in it, but where were the Christians then?

Busy still fighting the Saxons
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #236 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Agniello View Post

I applaud Apple and Google for taking a stand on this very important civil rights issue. It's disturbing enough that none of the candidates for office talk at length about it. Somebody has to stand up for the 10% or so of us who happen to fall in love with members of the same sex. I mean, 1 in 10 is not a tiny number. It's definitely in the minority, but a tenth of the population ain't nothing.

The true number is more like 2-3%. However they want to be a 10%+ agenda and force their perversions out into the public realm, and confuse our kids at a young age by teaching it in schools.
post #237 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Good.

Not good. Politics, especially this year, are polarizing. The last thing Apple should want right now is to take a stance opposite half of their users.
post #238 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariofreak85 View Post

heaven forbid children learn about more than one view or opinion.

We often teach our children multiple views. Often they are categorized as RIGHT and WRONG.
post #239 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmoser View Post

Denmark doesn't have full-blown "gay marriage"- they have same-sex unions, which go a couple of steps closer to the California model. So, I guess you're still in the middle ages, huh? Tragic.

The reason why is because wherever gay marriage is fully legalized, or close to it, it marginalizes marriage, which, is the underpinning of Western Civilization. Marriage rates drop like a rock, and you wind up with a huge amount of out-of-wedlock birthrates. Most of these result in a single parent raising the child, which is hard on the kids, and gov't coffers to support the single parents. Of course, in Denmark, tax rates are so high it almost pays better to stay home than have a job- so that particular argument doesn't necessarily matter to you.

Since, according to you, it's all about love, why not brother/sister, father/daughter or hell, bestiality... let's throw in a few chickens. No restrictions, right? Why not five people getting married? I'm sure you get the point.
It marginalizes the importance of marriage.

You are simply wrong! \ We have had gay marriages made fully legal since Oct. 1st 1989. A few minor restrictions where implemented but was fully removed in 1999. You get married in chuch, the town hall or where ever you decide. Its all made legal by the state. So I don´t get your... "Huh"!

As for the "love": If you love your self and have people you love, you would also want to love them responsibly. So I can´t see your point here. Are you saying that gays are inresponsibly and that they will marry their hamster or child? If you do know how to love it wouldn´t be a problem. Then you would know the difference between loving your pet or loving your son/dagther, as to loving your sexual partner or wife/husband. I really don´t understand your comments on this? Do you have problems deciding wether it´s the hamster or your girl that you will marry? ...I don´t think so!

I´m glad that I live in a country that care enough to let people love whom they may! As long as you do it responsibly. Gay or not!

I hope Apple´s move on this subject will help gay people in California to enjoy the same rigths that we have here in Denmark. Go Apple!
I love the snappiness - I adore the sazzyness - I need the intuitive
Reply
I love the snappiness - I adore the sazzyness - I need the intuitive
Reply
post #240 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by srs View Post

I think it is pointless and silly for Apple to be making a stance on these issues. Especially being that in California same sex couples receive virtually the same legal protections as married couples; namely rights of property, tax rights, retirement program rights, employment rights, and other legal benefits. I am completely in favor of all these benefits and hope to see them adopted nationwide.

But here are a few points to explain why I am voting YES on Prop 8. My position is the same as both presidential candidates and their running mates (as were clearly stated in recent VP debate) in maintaining the traditional definition of "marriage" as being between one man and one woman.

I would also be more than happy to provide additional citations for any of these claims.

What do those opposing Proposition 8 want?

1. Those opposing Proposition 8 want same sex marriage taught in school, starting with kindergarten, as being exactly the same as marriage between a man and a woman. They want this teaching campaign that sexual preference does not matter to begin even before children develop their sexual identities, which will be confusing and destabilizing to our children.

2. Those opposing Proposition 8 would like that campaign to occur at taxpayer expense, as all textbooks in California will be required to be changed to describe marriage as genderless.

3. Those opposing Proposition 8 insist that this propaganda campaign must occur without parental consent or notice.

4. Those opposing Proposition 8 want same sex couples to be able to force their right to adopt a young baby even when it will compete with and replace a family with a mother and father, although having a mother and a father is always in the best interest of every baby.

5. Those opposing Proposition 8 seek to close down adoption clinics and religious welfare agencies of those who oppose same sex marriage (just as has happened already in Massachusetts), as they place the right to same sex marriage on a collision course with the right to free speech and freedom of religion of those with whom they disagree, when those clinics are a crucial help to the people of this State.

6. Those opposing Proposition 8 do not want people in a same sex union to be properly questioned when they try to adopt young adults of their same sex for example, two married men seeking to adopt a 12-year old boy. In short, same sex couples do not want to be treated any differently than a couple consisting of a man and woman even in circumstances where there are differences and questions should be asked.


These are just a few points. You are free to disagree. By definition, tolerance means tolerating differences. I am not forcing you to agree with me, but I ask that this discussion continue in a respectful way.

srs,

I oppose Prop 8; I know hundreds of people who oppose Prop 8; and I will go on record to state this:

Each of your six points is patently false.
Every. Single. One.


Not even one of them is remotely true. But stating them with authority makes you feel important and knowledgeable, doesn't it? I don't know one person who supports Prop 8 who's in favor of any of your points. Not one person!

Unfortunately, you're gullible, and you've been duped by the lies that proponents of Prop 8 have spread. They're playing "dirty," and in that regard, they're seeing success. Disagreeing is one thing. But lying is another. No one who opposes Prop 8 has needed to lie. So, why have supporters of Prop 8 had to do so? The fact that Prop 8 supporters have had to resort to lying says a lot about you. I challenge you to present a shred of non-partisan documentation that backs up your claims. And I challenge you to find one opponent of Prop 8 to corroborate your absurd claims. Just one. (Good luck with that.)

Meanwhile, I leave you with a question:

If Prop 8 passes, you'll no doubt claim that "God's will was done." With that in mind, if Prop 8 is defeated, will you admit that "God's will was done"? Or is "God's will" only done when he appears to agree with you?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle