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 2

post #41 of 1350
This thread is going to be fun!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mebbert View Post

Parents should have the right to teach their kids morals.

Parents have the responsibility to teach their kids morals. Allowing gay marriage doesn't change anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Speaking of sheer stupidity, anyone who can't see that 'Tab A' was designed to go into 'Slot B'.......well.......

The argument of procreation being a requirement for marriage is weak. Procreation is only required to further the growth of the species, which is already growing too fast. If procreation isn't possible should sterile heterosexual people not be allowed to get married?

I do understand why various religions don't want to acknowledge certain legal unions as marriage, and I agree with that. The Catholic church won't marry various heterosexual couples if they aren't both Catholic. They have that right, but to not allow a legal union because of sexuality is a Civil Rights violation.

For comparison, it was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that interracial marriages were a civil right. How long before the Supreme Court makes it unconstitutional for those Red States to deny gay marriage?
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 #42 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!

Good riddance! Companies need to take moral stands!

KRR
post #43 of 1350
Very poor decision Apple. This indicates a political side 100%. Also as a customer I feel disappointed. I agree with Mrrrrrrr, my hard earned money going towards something I don't not support!
Macbook 2.2GHz (2007)
Mac Mini - 2.4 Ghz (2010)
Reply
Macbook 2.2GHz (2007)
Mac Mini - 2.4 Ghz (2010)
Reply
post #44 of 1350
What is the natural order of things? Seriously, I'd like to know. The problem with the "natural order" is it assumes what is natural and what is not. It is natural for organisms to reproduce, yet there are couples who choose not to have children. It is natural for mothers to breast feed yet when they do it in public, it is frowned upon. We are born naked and all other creatures on this planet stay that way through their lives yet humans don't tolerate it. It is natural for a gay man to be attracted to another man yet it is considered unnatural.

I'm assuming you're straight. Has it always been natural for you to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex or did you have to learn it?

And what was with Britney and Madonna's kiss? Straight men seem to be all over that!

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...
post #45 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

And with that argument, if you're broke, you should just throw your beliefs aside and go rob a bank.

I think more US companies should stand up for the human rights that is proudly claimed to be so superior by Americans.


As a company, your 1st and most important goal is to make the shareholders happy. Whether or not I believe in Gay Marriage, which is no one's buisness, polarizing the shareholders is not a good idea for a company.

Have your beliefs, yes, and champion them strongly and loudly. Just don't mess with my money in this time of economic uncertainty.


FYI- I do support Gay Marriage because it means equality but Marriage is not the road that Homosexuals should take. Civil unions and writing a DAMN will like everyone else should be paths striven for.
post #46 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by airspeed View Post

A wonderful human being. He has every right to be accepted for what he chooses.

Your argument would make perfect sense if I accepted your premise that homosexuality is a choice. Only flat-worlders other willfully ignorant religious enthusiasts think that. The science on this is as obvious as say . . . evolution? But I guess that won't persuade you now will it?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #47 of 1350
Always interesting to see otherwise intelligent people on this site show their intensely bigoted side ...

However, as it's been pointed out (a bunch of times) on many blogs this morning...
This is NOT a case of a company "supporting a political agenda."

Apple is defending their workers and defending their civil/human rights, that's all.

Bottom line is if it was a racial group being denied their rights instead of gays there would be no argument. You are either a bigot or you are for equal rights. There is no grey on this issue.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #48 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagar View Post

Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, ... all countries where gay mariage is legal. As it should be. Why discriminate? Good for Apple to speak out!

And why should children not be taught about gay marriage in school? If they have a friend in their class with two mothers or fathers, why should that be ignored? Education is the only way to become more tolerant and open minded!

after reading all these comments on here I just may move to one of those countries. Which one has the best weather? I need to live somewhere sunny
post #49 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotek2001 View Post

It does affect the company. It's widely accepted that about 10% of the world's population is homosexual and that includes both Apple's employees and customers. Respecting civil rights is an important consideration for any company seeking to attract good people and this therefore makes sense.

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.

Good points... However my money going towards something I don't support discusses me.
Macbook 2.2GHz (2007)
Mac Mini - 2.4 Ghz (2010)
Reply
Macbook 2.2GHz (2007)
Mac Mini - 2.4 Ghz (2010)
Reply
post #50 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Reich View Post

Because when the kids at school find out the adopted kid has 2 gays for parents he will get his butt kicked all thru school.

Plus what a role model to follow, if Jr. wasn't gay he or she will be by the time there done. If it's a infant it will think it's okay for 2 males to kiss each other. After that it's a short ride to being a hair stylist.

Funny thing is Jesus was gay.
post #51 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by freethinker View Post

FYI- I do support Gay Marriage because it means equality but Marriage is not the road that Homosexuals should take. Civil unions and writing a DAMN will like everyone else should be paths striven for.

Didn't we do this separate but equal thing years ago? How did that turn out?
post #52 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagar View Post

Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, ... all countries where gay mariage is legal. As it should be. Why discriminate?

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.
post #53 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Point taken.

Men and women were also designed to go together because we are different in personality and spirit, and compliment each other. Little boys like adventure and shooting games and swashbuckling. Little girls like dressing pretty and twirling in tutus and playing house. When we grow older and find a partner, strength melds with beauty, and the two compliment each other and become one. Our differences complete us. Children need both as parents; they miss out on one or the other when there are only 2 dads or 2 moms.

It's been said that when a society begins to lose gender distinction, it's in its final throes. You can see it in progress in the great old U. S. of A.


I appreciate the spirit of your reply. I am a happily married hetero so am well aware of the benefits of being with a woman. But I know gay couples who fit the description you gave to a "T".

There's no loss of gender distinction in what's being discussed. Everyone knows who's who and who's got what (take note grammar police). Besides, who said that, anyway? What, Rome and Greece fell because of gays? Puleeze!
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #54 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots View Post

Damn!!!... and on a first post too - gentlemen, start your engines!

No no - just ignore the fool. Anyone who uses that many smilies and that many page returns to say that little is just clamoring for attention.
post #55 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

The science on this is as obvious as say . . . evolution?

Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.

Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?
post #56 of 1350
I feel this is a tremendously bad move on Apple's part.

First, as a public company they shouldn't contribute to something that (obviously) doesn't represent all of their investors. I liken it to a union contriubting to a political campaign or party. No matter who they support it's very likely that a large segment of the membership will fundamentally disagree with the decision.

Second, why take a side? As a company who should be in the business of selling its products to the general population why risk alienating a large segment of that population. This is especially true given the polarizing nature of this particular issue.

Just really a very bad decision that I hope is not duplicated in the future.

Regards,
Eric
post #57 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.

Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?

All I know is I am Voting for Ralph Nader and that Barack Obama is a liar, Biden is a plagiarist, McCain is batshit crazy, and Palin is brainless.


VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ!


Oh and Fuck Morality
post #58 of 1350
Wow, Apple, for a while I actually thought you guys were smart. When a computer company spends their money in a controversial move, you're gonna get half of your users to be happier with you, and you're gonna get the other half of your users who were gonna buy that new Mac to think twice before supporting a company that does something they're morally opposed to.

As for me, I think I just became a little bit less of an Apple fanboy.
post #59 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by freethinker View Post

Funny thing is Jesus was gay.

Not funny, nor true.
post #60 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Reich View Post

Well I ain't shy.

I still love my state but damn not going lie down and let 2% tell the rest of us what to do. Looks like the Nancy's can move to other more tolerant states.

A neighbor had a his sign stolen from his house in support of the ban on the Nancy's and someone stole it, apparently freedom a speech is only for the Nancy's. I told them I would aim one of my security cameras in their direction to catch the rump ranger who stole it and we will deal with him instead of 911.

I used to think California was a pretty tolerant state. Guess I was wrong.


While we're getting rid of all the Nancy's and their right to marry we should get rid of the coons and their right to marry as well. After all, they are not like me... and that's just wrong.
post #61 of 1350
Because children are highly influential and often cannot make choices based on what's best for them. This opens up the opportunity to exploit children.

Because in many polygamous groups, the women are exploited and treated as subservients. If this were not the case, would polygamy be bad? Also, because it is against the primary religious beliefs of the USA.

Because marrying an animal is just wrong. (Yes, this opens up the argument for debate, but at least with gay marriage, you're marrying a HUMAN BEING!)

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.
post #62 of 1350
Think Different indeed.............
post #63 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by macosxp View Post

Wow, Apple, for a while I actually thought you guys were smart. When a computer company spends their money in a controversial move, you're gonna get half of your users to be happier with you, and you're gonna get the other half of your users who were gonna buy that new Mac to think twice before supporting a company that does something they're morally opposed to.

As for me, I think I just became a little bit less of an Apple fanboy.

Same here. If Apple goes pushing the gay agenda, I might have to switch to Linux or something...
post #64 of 1350
You're a riot. LOL! Love the tongue-in-cheek. (or should I say, the penishead in cheek).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Reich View Post

Well I ain't shy.

I still love my state but damn not going lie down and let 2% tell the rest of us what to do. Looks like the Nancy's can move to other more tolerant states.

A neighbor had a his sign stolen from his house in support of the ban on the Nancy's and someone stole it, apparently freedom a speech is only for the Nancy's. I told them I would aim one of my security cameras in their direction to catch the rump ranger who stole it and we will deal with him instead of 911.
post #65 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Same here. If Apple goes pushing the gay agenda, I might have to switch to Linux or something...

The gay agenda...now if they start pushing the hetero agenda we're all fucked.

oh wait, thats what this society has pushed..

and wait, we are all fucked.
post #66 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mebbert View Post

It's my right to teach them the morals I believe in.

Your comments reminds me of Brown v. Board of Education, in which people, like yourself, thought it was wrong for their white kids to be taught alongside black kids. You can home school them or send them to private religious schools that will surely teach your children that being gay is a disease of the brain and/or for those who haven't accepted [insert deity here] as their lord and saviour.

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.

That isn't true. Churches have a right to not marry whomever they choose. A Catholic priest won't marry a Protestant and Jew. All this does is make it legal for same sex couples to get the same rights as opposite sex couples. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married, but they deserve that right under the law.

The side effect of what you'll see, is that there will be churches that that will marry homosexuals, because they want to, not because they have to. There are apparently many gay people that are also religious, too.
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 #67 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.

Are you kidding? Consensual sex with children? That is not called discrimination - its protection. I realize you are a fundamentalist Christian and cannot be argued with but please be a little self discriminating before you spew forth
post #68 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

Because in many polygamous groups, the women are exploited and treated as subservients.

By that argument, Islamic heterosexual marriages would have to be banned as well.
post #69 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.

Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?

You need to brush up on the subtleties of the evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection. Sounds like you learned about it in bible class. Human variability is a marvelous and complex phenomenon, not the click-clack, nickle-in-the-slot simplicity you propose. Seemingly non-productive variations continue to appear. They may not favor reproduction, but they are not extinguished.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #70 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.

Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?


I appreciate your civility. However, what Darwinian evolution ASKS (as opposed to tells us) is: why does homosexuality persist despite not directly contributing to procreation? Continuation of a species as complex as human beings relies on more than just whether or not the two genders mate. (Do those "special" doting Aunts and Uncles help build a strong family?, etc.) Because homosexuality persists, (and because I am gay), I think it is important to ask and understand what homosexuality brings to humanity before we try to eliminate it.

Or it really may not matter at all. If it is truly neutral, I believe Darwinian evolution allows for inconsequential things to continue (or not.)
post #71 of 1350
Or maybe homosexuality has benefits in the whole scheme of life, a benefit not obvious to the population (such as sickle-cell anemia). There was research recently indicating that homosexuals benefited heterosexual couples in that there was little to no competition with the heterosexuals yet they contributed with parenting, food gathering and protection, thus increasing viability of offspring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.

Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?
post #72 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Are you kidding? Consensual sex with children? That is not called discrimination - its protection. I realize you are a fundamentalist Christian and cannot be argued with but please be a little self discriminating before you spew forth

"Argued with" is the wrong term. He can't be 'reasoned with". He's comparing the nonconsensual union of children and livestock to the consensual union of two adults. By his argument, he should let God do the discrimination, but seems to rather do it himself as if he were God.
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 #73 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiltBear View Post

I appreciate your civility. However, what Darwinian evolution ASKS (as opposed to tells us) is: why does homosexuality persist despite not directly contributing to procreation? Continuation of a species as complex as human beings relies on more than just whether or not the two genders mate. (Do those "special" doting Aunts and Uncles help build a strong family?, etc.) Because homosexuality persists, (and because I am gay), I think it is important to ask and understand what homosexuality brings to humanity before we try to eliminate it.

Or it really may not matter at all. If it is truly neutral, I believe Darwinian evolution allows for inconsequential things to continue (or not.)

Wow, your response to Frugality was so much more elegant and human than mine. Thanks.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #74 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mebbert View Post

The biggest issue is that gay marriage will be taught to kids in school (as early as Kindergarten).

That's a lie on the part of the folks pushing Prop 8, and it looks like you bought into it. You're just parroting their false propaganda.

Nothing about marriage is taught in california schools now, and that won't change regardless of whether gay marriage is legal or not there.

Seriously, who as a kid went to school and remembers "Today we're going to study MARRIAGE"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

I don't understand the need for gay people to get married. The only reason that gays want it is because heterosexuals have it. I think we should just get rid of marriage altogether from the state and federal level. Everyone files their income tax as an individual, and gets their own health insurance as an individual. You want to get married? Fine, go do it in your favorite place of worship or whatever. There would be no benefit to being married as far as our government goes. Go marry a goat for all anyone cares.

And throw away things like inheritance, custody of kids, and the right to make medical decisions for that person? That would be a complete mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mebbert View Post

You clearly are not familiar with what is going on in Massachusetts. Kindergarteners get a book about it.

And why exactly are you under the impression that california would be obligated to do something just because massachusetts does it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by revjim View Post

I don't know what Kool Aid you've been drinking, but the opposition to Prop 8 is outspending the "religious groups" 7 to 1 in advertising this week alone.

Source? Mormons alone have donated over 19 million dollars to promote it.
post #75 of 1350
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............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......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?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.

You may not be Familiar with the Supreme Court Case Plessy v. Ferguson, so I'll fill you in: It set into law that it was OK to have "separate 'but equal' facilities" for a class of citizen. What it did was essentially legalize prejudice. They were "different" so it was OK to give them less, to treat them like they didn't matter.

There's a correlation here.

The homos are not asking the heteros to give up marriage so that ONLY the homos can do it. They're asking for equality. They're asking for the same protections and rights as everyone else has, and since it's "the same," it should be called the same as well. If you call it different if you say it's "Separate BUT EQUAL" well, we've all heard that line before, right? And it just wasn't very true.

Why should WE ALL support it, even if we're not gay and maybe even disapprove of the lifestyle? In order to defend OUR rights, too.

If you begin to legally create a second class citizenship again, you're walking a very slippery slope. You want to hold a people down because they're "different," and this is OK with you because you're not "different." But I ask, what happens when later, someone wants to write ANOTHER law that discriminates against a class of citizen that's "different," and this time it's YOU? Will you still support it? Will you vote "yes" on it when it's limiting YOUR rights, and creating a schism between you and society, something you always thought yourself a part of, even though you're not exactly like everyone else? You're different too, don't forget that. You're blond or brunette, you have different colored eyes than your neighbor. You don't believe in the same church, perhaps. We're ALL to some extent different.

There's also the parallel to nazi germany here, as well:

"First They Came..."

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

_________-------_________

Such hatred for others, who wish you no harm. It makes no logical sense.
post #76 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Same here. If Apple goes pushing the gay agenda, I might have to switch to Linux or something...

I wonder what the Gay Agenda could be? Could you elaborate? I know a lot of gay people and in my experience their agenda is pretty much like everybody else's, you know, like you. What's your agenda? Or what is the Hetero Agenda, for that matter.
post #77 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve's son View Post

Good points... However my money going towards something I don't support discusses me.

It is not really your money any more. Your money went to purchase a product you liked. If I thought that I had to think through and validate the morals of each company I purchased a product from, I would probably starve.
post #78 of 1350
I believe the best darwinian explanation of homosexuality I've found is that homosexuals tend to act as support for their family and extended family (there is statistical evidence for this outside modern societies) since they're less likely to have kids. Their relatives are therefore more likely to have offspring that will survive and so similar genes are spread which indirectly propagates genetic homosexual predispositions.


I don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage, let the 1% have their silly little weddings and find something of relevance to occupy your time
post #79 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

"Argued with" is the wrong term. He can't be 'reasoned with". He's comparing the nonconsensual union of children and livestock to the consensual union of two adults. By his argument, he should let God do the discrimination, but seems to rather do it himself as if he were God.

You speaketh better than me I love the term "Nonconsensual union with livestock" - hilarious. I hope his God does not not say Yes with Love with the same force he says No with love. It sounds very scary.
post #80 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

I wonder what the Gay Agenda could be? Could you elaborate? I know a lot of gay people and in my experience their agenda is pretty much like everybody else's, you know, like you. What's your agenda? Or what is the Hetero Agenda, for that matter.

JOKE: a little self deprecating humor to highlight the ridiculousness of the term: The Gay Agenda

The Homosexual Agenda

6:00 am Gym

8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)

9:00 am Hair appointment

10:00 am Shopping

12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM

1) Assume complete control of the US Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments

2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle

3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages

4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels

5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership

6) Bulldoze all houses of worship

7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers

2:30 PM Get Forty Winks of Beauty Rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest

4:00 PM Cocktails

6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)

8:00 PM Theater

11:00 PM Bed (du jour)
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