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 7

post #241 of 1350
Quote:
The question everyone should be asking is, should a privately owned company use shareholders money to make a political statement.

Almost any civil rights issue can be defined as a political one in some respect, but it does't mean it's not a civil rights issue too. Apple has more of a right to make a claim on this CA state issue than UT mormons do. 100K is nothing compared to the billions corporations spend shareholder money on all the time. We just don't hear about it.

BTW, 3.8 billion a day?

Quote:
they want to be a 10%+ agenda and force their perversions out into the public realm

LAWL

Quote:
We often teach our children multiple views. Often they are categorized as RIGHT and WRONG.

There's also tolerance and intolerance. Wonder which side you fall on that one. Better join the sheltered mormons in UT, before the California gays get a chance to "force" their perversions on them. Oooh, scary.
post #242 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by myviews View Post

That is one reason I support Prop 8. At some point legalized gay marriage will be forced on religious sects, and churches will be sued unless they perform gay marriages. That goes beyond tolerating this disgusting behavior. That infringes on my rights and my beliefs.

Why not legalize polygamy? That's a case where political parties have stopped a religion from the right to their beliefs.

Seems the political left is a little one sided to me.

Polygamy should be legal. No need for government interference. Gay marriage should be legal. It's nobody's business but theirs.

"Infringing on your beliefs"? Cross that bridge when you come to it. No one is forcing churches to perform any kind of ceremonies.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #243 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundsgoodtome View Post

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?

You might recall that after Jesus prayed to the Father that he wouldn't have to go through with the scourging and crucifixion, he said, "yet not my will but yours be done." Jesus knew that the will of God the Father was what was important, even though he wanted very much to avoid the cross. But it was God's will that his son be sacrificed for all of mankind.

Likewise, whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails....God may stir the hearts of the voters to ban gay marriage, or he may stand back and let gay marriage become the law of the land, even though it's not what he wants. Either way, his will has been done. He maybe help us, or he may stand back with his arms crossed and not help us, because we've turned away from him as a country.

In the end, though, God does not rule by the laws of government. He rules in the hearts of humans, one at a time. My brother is gay, and only God can change him. A law isn't going to do it.
post #244 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon View Post

Want proof? All societies of the past have been destroyed solely due to the lowering of the mores of that society. Every single one.

You're making things up to support your dislike of gays. Just admit you don't like gay people and don't hide behind specious arguments.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #245 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleAnt View Post

I will regretfully not be buying products from Apple for a year and perhaps longer.

I will also not be purchasing Apple stock.

Gay marriage is not just a civil rights issue it is also a moral issue. I object to my government blessing as acceptable what I view as immoral and against biological nature.

I have no objections to civil unions provided they are available to anyone who wants to establish a domestic partnership irregardless of sexual relations or not.

The thousands of dollars that I have spent on Apple products over the years won't make much of a difference but it will make me feel better and perhaps others will magnify the impact.

If Apple wants to vote with their dollars, I will vote with mine.

That's the beauty of the free market. Take your business elsewhere. Enjoy your Vista riddled PC.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #246 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowayout11 View Post

There's also tolerance and intolerance. Wonder which side you fall on that one.

Intolerance is not always bad. We should be intolerant of what is wrong.
post #247 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenKids View Post

Prop 8 offend me in a worst way, I'm hetero and not a USA citizen.

If this prop ever get passed, the american spirit will be a little more dead.

Good for you. This does not affect you, so why are you commenting?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #248 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Why do we discriminate against adults having consensual sex with children?

Why do we discriminate against polygamy?

Why do we discriminate against marrying a dog our a goat? (don't laugh, it's done in Hindu cultures)

Realize that discrimination is good in certain instances. What's being debated is whether something should be discriminated against or not.

Ask God if he discriminates. He does discriminate, because he knows what is good for us and what is not good for us. He created bounds and limits for us, and discriminates between what's in bounds and what's out of bounds in terms of behavior. He discriminates, and does it in love. Sometimes he says 'no', with love.


You are confusing 2 uses of the word "discrimination".
It literally means "to make a disctinction between".
That is what you describe God does: He makes a distinction between good and evil.

In the legal and moral context of this discussion discrimination has an extended meaning:
To make distinctions between individuals based on characteristics of any group that they belong to, and to treat them differently than others because of such characteristics.
In this context "discrimination" is when you don't treat someone like a person (like an equal) because they belong to a certain group.
Discrimination is considered immoral because it is the depersonalisation of individuals.

You are wrong when you assume that the constitution and people in general think it is OK to discriminate against murderers, child-molesters, gays or goat-marriers.
The opposite is true.

Under the constitution:
- Nobody has the right to take another's live, whether they are atheist or Christian.
- When someone is accused of murder, they are entitled to a fair trial, whether they are guilty or not, whether they are gay or straight.
- A child molester should receive their lawful sentence whether they are black or white.
- 2 consenting individuals have the right to a civil marriage, whether they are Christian or Hindu, gay or straight.

I think that you don't really understand the concept of discrimination, and that's why you can't recognize it in yourself.
post #249 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by arownious View Post

A.) I don't care how many customers or employees this affects, Apple still has no business supporting social issues. It is a democratic vote by the people, and everyone else needs to shut their face. The PEOPLE will decide how they want to be governed. Majority rules in a democratic situation. Deal with it. In fact, I think it will hurt Apple more, as MORE people object to the idea overall. Homosexual marriage has historically been voted down time and time again, though single legislating judges feel it is their right to over rule the PEOPLE.

B.) MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! I challenge any one of you to find it in the Constitution. You will not/cannot find it. So therefore, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT protect MARRIAGE (homosexual or otherwise) for it's citizens.


Well, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that counts for something. And the government should have no say whatsoever in religious matters regarding marriage. In matters of contract law, we have plenty of precedence.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #250 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.

Nice. I never knew there were so many intolerant shmucks on AI. I wonder... are they pro-Palin plants?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #251 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

An animal is a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Being sentient means you able to perceive or feel things.

They are not exclusive of each other.


I agree, but since the government is involved and there is no need to involve any religion, unless one wishes, I see no reason why two same sex couples can't be married under law. The under God part is up to the churches, and I don't see them changing their stance anytime soon.

I think the real issue is that people can't separate the polyseme term of the related but distinct meaning of a marriage under God and a marriage by law. If it we called the legal union something different than marriage would this as big of an issue?

Perhaps there should be 2 distinct phases of "marriage". The Marriage Contract and the Marriage Ceremony.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #252 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namdnal Siroj View Post

You are confusing 2 uses of the word "discrimination".

...

I think that you don't really understand the concept of discrimination, and that's why you can't recognize it in yourself.

I'd like to introduce you to a fella named Bill Clinton. When being questioned about the Monica Lewinski scandal, he tried to make a few different definitions of the word 'is'.

I understand the word 'discrimination' -- to make a distinction between two things. Sometimes there is a value judgment based on that discrimination (right and wrong), and sometimes there is no value judgment based on that discrimination (orange or green.) You may disagree with my value judgment, but the point still stands -- discrimination is often good and necessary.
post #253 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Intolerance is not always bad. We should be intolerant of what is wrong.

Since your god doesn't get to speak for everybody, right and wrong becomes all the more subjective.
post #254 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

You might recall that after Jesus prayed to the Father that he wouldn't have to go through with the scourging and crucifixion, he said, "yet not my will but yours be done." Jesus knew that the will of God the Father was what was important, even though he wanted very much to avoid the cross. But it was God's will that his son be sacrificed for all of mankind.

Likewise, whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails....God may stir the hearts of the voters to ban gay marriage, or he may stand back and let gay marriage become the law of the land, even though it's not what he wants. Either way, his will has been done. He maybe help us, or he may stand back with his arms crossed and not help us, because we've turned away from him as a country.

In the end, though, God does not rule by the laws of government. He rules in the hearts of humans, one at a time. My brother is gay, and only God can change him. A law isn't going to do it.

And so I have you in my heart, when I think of these words:
"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."
post #255 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namdnal Siroj View Post

- 2 consenting individuals have the constitutional right to marry, whether they are Christian or Hindu, gay or straight.

I happen to have a copy of the Constitution here at my house (have had it since I was a kid) and I have never seen anything in there (or it's amendments) referencing a right to marry. But then again the "separation of church and state" has never been in there either but most people seem to think it's in there somewhere... (The truth is Andrew Jackson referenced it in a paper he wrote but it was never an official stance of the US gov't and wasn't again seen from until a US justice referenced it in a court ruling but that doesn't make it a law). And don't give me the argument about the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - that's not the "separation of church and state." That simply says that the gov't will not require anyone to be a part of any one religion nor granting preference to any one religion over any other (or lack of religion).
post #256 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pay closer attention next time.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, so arownious' assertion still stands.
post #257 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mebbert View Post

As I mentioned above, many parents don't want their kids being taught about gay marriages in school (myself included). Whether you think that is right or wrong is irrelevant. It's my right to teach them the morals I believe in. You can do the same with your children, but schools do not (or at least should not) have that right.

So, it's ok for schools to teach what you agree with, but not other parents? What about the other parents who don't want schools to teach their kids that gay marriage is NOT ok? Aren't their rights just as valid as yours?

Quote:
Another big effect is religious. If gay marriages are recognized by the state, then any religion who refuses to marry gays will be subject to lawsuits and loss of tax exemption. Government cannot force a religion to change its values...well, it used to be that way.

Catholics do not allow divorce. Why isn't this a problem.
post #258 of 1350
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Umm, that's not the Constitution - that's the Declaration of Independence...
post #259 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

At least Britney could figure out the natural order of things....that a male and a female go together...

Is it the natural order of things to marry at all? Marriage is a man-made institution. Labeling something as "natural" or not is irrelevant.
post #260 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowayout11 View Post

Since your god doesn't get to speak for everybody, right and wrong becomes all the more subjective.

I'm not talking about my own personal god, I'm talking about the God -- the one and only.

You're right, though. Without him, all right and wrong is subjective. Everything goes.

If right and wrong is truly subjective, people's blood pressure need not rise when someone declares their pet sins to be wrong.
post #261 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrrrrrrrr View Post

I am switching to Windows now! I dont intend to pay Jobs my hard-earned money! .Net I love you!

Guess what I am sure you pay your hard earned money to a lot of Gay people every day..

PS and Redmond is a gay free place... ya right..
post #262 of 1350
This is why your argument is ridiculous:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sabu22 View Post

This is simply wrong.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............

Irrelevant. Two family members marrying each other is not similar to two gay people marrying any more than it is similar to a man and woman marrying.
Quote:
or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc

Dogs and cats do not have the right to marry. We're talking about people here. Again, not similar to gay couples any more than heterosexual couples.
Quote:
.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?

If you believe any of your arguments are even slightly valid, then you are arguing against marriage itself, let alone homosexual marriage.
post #263 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

I'd like to introduce you to a fella named Bill Clinton. When being questioned about the Monica Lewinski scandal, he tried to make a few different definitions of the word 'is'.

My argument is not just rhetorical. Words represent different concepts in different contexts.
"Marriage" means "holy matrimony" when it is done in a church and "civil union" when it is done in city hall.

"Discrimination" in a legal context is about ACTIONS based on VALUE JUDGEMENTS based in DISTINCTIONS.
It doesn't merely mean "to distinguish A from B".
You can look up the legal description.

Also, there ARE several meanings to the word "is".
"To be" can refer to being alive, to being in a geographical location. FYI, Mandarin has 2 seperate verbs for these two meanings of "to be".
You are confusing two related meanings of the word "discrimination".
post #264 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

I'm not talking about my own personal god, I'm talking about the God -- the one and only.

LOL. Quacks are fun.
post #265 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

I happen to have a copy of the Constitution here at my house (have had it since I was a kid) and I have never seen anything in there (or it's amendments) referencing a right to marry.

Thanks for correcting me. I have reworded my post because it was not about whether it's a constitutional or other right.
post #266 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

That question should not be the point of this thread. As always no one has a clue what they are talking about on this forum.

The question everyone should be asking is, should a privately owned company use shareholders money to make a political statement.

Living in the UK any comment you have on this subject is invalid because you don not vote or pay taxes in this country. ...

...You can debate our question all you want, the fact remains private companies should stay out of a political cause and simply allow the people of this country to vote.

It is so great to have someone like you who REALLY knows. Kind of God-like.
But I beg to differ - to keep quiet and stay out of a political cause / debate can arguably be as much of a political statement as getting involved. If, as a company you feel strongly about a civil rights issue where no financial advantage will be gained, I see no wrong. Washington is rife with lobbyists representing corporations or corporate interest groups and by comparison Apple's involvement in a civil rights issue of this kind is admirable. If a company 50 years go had been involved in civil rights issues and supported a movement or group fighting for racial equality would you lambast them today for their involvement then, or praise them for their efforts?
post #267 of 1350
[QUOTE=Fotek2001;1329582]I take it you just went straight to the comments to post your flame without reading this bit:

Quote: 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."

I take it you didn't see it in CA where a teacher took her first grade class on a field trip to the teacher's gay wedding! Field trip - taxpayer funding - INDOCTRINATION anyone?! Liberals take small steps but never keep their eye off the ball of reaching their social reengineering. CA School Superintendent should have said the following... "has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, YET"...

Mark my words in time it 'll be up there with that "Heather has two mommies" book.

Am I a anti-gay for believing in a union between one man and one woman when it comes to defining marriage? Am I a bigot for agreeing that same sex couples should not be denied any rights because of their lifestyle, just don't try and redefine an institution and definition that has preceded that lifestyle for their own conveniences.

What about change? People on this board show more consternation about the new MacBook lacking Firewire then the attempts made to redefine marriage. If any definition should be changed, I think pennies should be redefined as dollars! What do you think Apple? I have 1599.00 pennies for a new Macbook. I don't have 1599.00 dollars! See how easy and efficient and self serving that was!

Hey Apple what's next on your social agenda?! What other consumers and stockholders do you want to aggravate because of your ideals? Do it on your own dime please!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #268 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

You may disagree with my value judgment, but the point still stands -- discrimination is often good and necessary.

We agree on this when you take discrimination to mean "to make distinctions".
Laws are all about making distinctions. They need to define distinctions in order to negotiate them, so individuals will have equal rights regardless.

My point is that my value judgement should not impact your rights to be less than mine.
Your value judgement should not impact others to not have the same rights as you do.
Because that's where discrimination got its other meaning.

[edit spelling and wording]
post #269 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Intolerance is not always bad. We should be intolerant of what is wrong.

Intolerance is not simply being against something. Intolerance is being against something that isn't victimizing anyone. Intolerance is when you fear and hate something for no real reason, and as such, make up reasons in your mind.

Gay marriage is happening all over the world. Society isn't crumbling because of it. Children all over the world are growing up learning that homosexuality is ok, and they are growing up ok.

Children who are taught that homosexuality is wrong are afraid to come out to their parents when they grow up and realize they're homosexual. These same people often have serious emotional problems when what they were taught conflicts with reality.
post #270 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

This is why your argument is ridiculous:

Dogs and cats do not have the right to marry. We're talking about people here. Again, not similar to gay couples any more than heterosexual couples.


Please show me where it is a RIGHT to marry. Where would I find this? Thanks.

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #271 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namdnal Siroj View Post

Thanks for correcting me. I have reworded my post because it was not about whether it's a constitutional or other right.

So you changed it to "civil marriage"? That still isn't in there. You do realize that the word marriage never once shows up in the constitution or it's amendments right? And when the supreme law governing the land not once references the claim you are trying to make it is no longer an issue of "rights" - it's an issue to be determined by the voters (i.e. Democracy).

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
post #272 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

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.

Most of the people who use Apple's products are intelligent liberals. Apple doesn't cater to the people that push this kind of ignorant legislation, or the people who vote for it.
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
post #273 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Gay marriage is happening all over the world. Society isn't crumbling because of it.

Try to see it from God's point of view.
post #274 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

That simply says that the gov't will not require anyone to be a part of any one religion nor granting preference to any one religion over any other (or lack of religion).

That can easily be interpreted as a separation of church and state as no religion is denied, nor is any religion required. How else do you achieve that unless you government is impartial to religion? Of course, there are aspects of religious icons throughout our government, but that is as much an endorsement as it as a violation of one of the commandments. There are also plenty of pagan symbols that appear to go back to the Masons, which apparently require a belief to join, though specific no specific religion or God... but I'll let Dan Brown's next book tackle the more excited side of all that.


PS: Out of curiosity, who here uses BCE/CE instead of BC/AD?
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 #275 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by UbiquitousGeek View Post

Most of the people who use Apple's products are intelligent liberals. Apple doesn't cater to the people that push this kind of ignorant legislation, or the people who vote for it.

Umm, wow, that's an interesting stereotype. I don't happen to know any liberal Apple owners - not one. I know a few moderates and a ton of conservatives (even in Ohio). Furthermore, Apple caters to those with money, they don't give a crap about your political affiliation...
post #276 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

You might recall that after Jesus prayed to the Father that he wouldn't have to go through with the scourging and crucifixion, he said, "yet not my will but yours be done." Jesus knew that the will of God the Father was what was important, even though he wanted very much to avoid the cross. But it was God's will that his son be sacrificed for all of mankind.

Likewise, whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails....God may stir the hearts of the voters to ban gay marriage, or he may stand back and let gay marriage become the law of the land, even though it's not what he wants. Either way, his will has been done. He maybe help us, or he may stand back with his arms crossed and not help us, because we've turned away from him as a country.

In the end, though, God does not rule by the laws of government. He rules in the hearts of humans, one at a time. My brother is gay, and only God can change him. A law isn't going to do it.

How lovely for you. Either way, God is right. How can you fail? Tell you what, as no-one knows about god - whether she is a man or a woman, is gay or lesbian, black or white, or if god even exists - lets toss a coin. Lets do it your way to make it more Christian. You say yes, God is real and exists - I say no, God is not real and does not exist. lets flip the coin - Heads I win, tails you loose....
post #277 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

PS: Out of curiosity, who here uses BCE/CE instead of BC/AD?

BC/AD. Old skool, baby!
post #278 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

PS: Out of curiosity, who here uses BCE/CE instead of BC/AD?

I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.
post #279 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Please show me where it is a RIGHT to marry. Where would I find this? Thanks.

Prop no 8 is about ammending state law to disallow certain federal rights. Isn't it?
Or what is this thread about do you think?
post #280 of 1350
Quote:
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)


OOOHHHH I forgot about that. Im sure the 2-3% of homo's of which less than 25% have a median income over 100k will make a huge boost in apples iphone sales. Lets see...... 50,000,000 adult working males in this country X 2% = 1,000,000 X 25% = 250,000.

Apple has sold 6.8 million Iphones. For every one homo it sold 25 to a hetro.

BTW, my income is 200k plus. My wife (a female)and I have purchased new from apple over the years... 1 performa mac, 3 imacs, 4 macbooks, 1 mac mini, 9 ipods, 1 iphone, 2 iphone 3g's.

Unless they also give 100k to the YES ON 8 campaign, the lost customers for life. Im sure im not the only one.


You homos are not as powerful or as popular as you think. YOU WILL LOSE THE PROP 8 FIGHT BY A LANDSLIDE. I cant wait!!!!
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