Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle - Page 12

He also admonished us to love our neighbors as we do ourselves! I don't prevent you from marrying, so please don't stop me. This makes me question your claim to Christianity with this flawed argument, so quit it, please.


Sound familiar at all? Why as a homosexual am I not equal and entitled to the same rights as you are?


But you are right about gay marriage because God is on your side, no?

Buying Apple products has always been supporting homosexuality as soon as they began offering partner benefits. Where was the hew and cry then or the mass exodus of customers? If one is going to scrutinize every company for whether they 'promote' homosexuality or 'its agenda' then one should do one's homework and be consistent about it. It's much easier to nip it in the bud.

I can't believe I'm actually trying to educate those on the other side!

Shame on Apple and on those who support this abomination! This is SICK, WICKED and WRONG! God is ever so merciful but He cannot let such wickedness last and He will execute His pure and righteous judgment for such abominable acts of sin! Repent NOW, you sinful and wicked United States of America! Forbid the murdering of unborn babies! Forbid homosexuality! Forbid gay marriage! REPENT! Turn back to God before it's too late!

Our once-great country, USA, is beginning to see God's judgment - the fall of the economy, the Bush regime, the 9/11 attacks carried out and exploited by our own government, our weakening as a sovereign nation, etc., and a big piece of this judgment is this next presidential election - whichever candidate gets in office - they are both as crooked as the day is long and have agendas aiming to destroy our nation. This country is being judged and rewarded for it's wicked and evil ways and the worst is still to come - unless perhaps we as a nation repent and follow God's ways.

Wake up America! Wake up and follow God!

I firmly support putting this measure on the ballot because it's a complete and total sham that appointed judges can over rule the will of the people in a democracy. The only power the people have over the judges is an amendment and we're going to continue to see this as people realize that passing laws doesn't mean a d@mn thing when some judge decides that his/her interpretation of the law says it's illegal.

I still think if judges are going to overturn a law they should need the same 2/3 majority that congress needs to overrule a presidential veto...

EDIT: The idea of checks and balances is, at this point, nothing more than idea and should BO win and the Democrats get the magic 60 in the Senate you can say goodbye to any attempt of catering to the minority. And by minority I mean republicans - crazy huh? I wonder if saying you're a republican will get you a scholarship when going to college...

But that was a fairly easy argument of saying you want the best talent. CA banning same sex marriage (as far as I'm aware this measure doesn't do anything to civil unions that are, legally speaking, exactly the same as marriages) doesn't have anything to do with Apple offering same sex couple benefits as they will continue to do it.

lol see Vincenzo? toldya better leave politics and religion out of Apple, now everybody is coming out of the woodwork. I think you and him should get a room

My admiration for Apple has just increased.

For those who think this is wrong consider this:

Everyone is entitled to the same basic human rights. The attempt to make the world a fairer place is the basis of a universal morality. It is also one of the bits of the US constitution that is the most impressive.

The angrier the attacks get, the more it sounds *exactly* like the Taliban.

C.

you went off the deep end when you mentioned the Taliban...

And since you mentioned the US Constitution please refer to pages earlier where it's clearly stated time and again that the constitution never once even uses the word marriage. Also, you're considering marriage a basic human right? Wow... And here I thought stuff like clean drinking water was a basic human right. What about a single person who doesn't really find someone he/she would like to marry? Are their "rights" being violated?

I just feel the need to share a couple of things, though why I tilt at windmills...

First, we do not live in a democracy! We live in a republic. The difference is that the majority does not rule and the rights of the minority are (generally) preserved. This is why we have the judiciary. To preserve everyone's rights, be they part of the majority or the minority. It was in this capacity that the California Supreme Court issued their ruling.

Can we change our core 'values' ensconced in our various constitutions. Yes, we most certainly can. But be very careful of the changes that you make. One day the changes could go against you or your minority (we all belong to some). We need to avoid excluding various groups from the rights that we enjoy and usually take for granted.

Finally, why do people get so confused over drives/feelings/emotions, our soul or core being so to speak, and behavior??? Here's what I'm getting at. I am gay. My soul makes me attracted to other men (and no, not all of you! I just want another gay one); my drives/feelings/emotions, of which I have no control over, they simply are and they are neither wrong nor right. They are what they are. However, I can choose my behavior. I [/B]can[/B] choose to ignore my core being and lead a 'normal' life as a heterosexual man with a wife and kids; many of us do. But that doesn't change the fact that my core being has these drives/feelings/emotions. As has been documented time and time again, gay men that have been 'repaired' continue to have these same drives/feelings/emotions. They simply (though they'll tell you it is no simple thing) choose a differing behavior.

So, in summary, we can choose to behave in any manner that we want to. We do not, however, have control over our souls or core beings. Trust me when I tell you that I know this very well as I tried to deny this for many, many very unhappy years as I tried to be what my church said I must be. I finally could no longer deal with the stress and have been much happier and much more healthy since I came out and embraced who I truly am.

We should all seek to support one another and help each of us to reach our true potentials rather than harness each other with ludicrous baggage.

Okay, I've had my say.

As a native, but former Californian, would someone there please cast a No on Proposition 8 vote for me? Pretty please?

The constitution kicks off to a good start:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thomas Jefferson

Marriage to my wife of 19 years was certainly a big part of my personal pursuit of happiness. I think for a lot of people it matters a lot. Personally I would not withhold that right to to anyone - as long at they took the obligations of marriage seriously.

While the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, it regularly executed homosexuals. Islamic jurists in Kabul and Kandahar only differed on the method of killing. One group of scholars believed the condemned should be taken to the top of the highest building in the city and hurled to their deaths, while others advocated placing them in a pit next to a wall which was to be toppled on them, so that they are buried alive. Both methods were solidly grounded in authoritative tradition, and both were applied. At least five men convicted of sodomy by Afghanistans sharia courts had been placed next to walls by Taliban officials and then buried under the rubble as the walls were toppled upon them. In one such incident, three homosexuals were punished thus while Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar watched along with thousands of spectators.


You theists are all the freaking same. Bigotry and evil to the core. You may be motivated by your own hatred, but you justify it by hiding behind arguments from old books full of vitriol and bile from a less civilized age.

Please, please, please just go away and stop spoiling this perfectly nice planet for the rest of us decent folk.

C.

So, I take it you didn't read the previous pages... That's the Declaration of Independence - it has absolutely no legal baring on the United State of America...

Oh right, I see - it's soooo clear. Saying you can't marry but can enter into civil union is exactly like executing them. Again, you went way, way off the deep end...

i think if you look at all of the responses on here you will see, as do all of the candidates this year, that marriage is indeed a matter of faith. That's why they all support civil unions and equal rights of gay couples, which i totally agree with. For the state to tell a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. that they MUST allow marriage between same sex couples seems a little inconsistent with the big picture of separation of church and state that so many people support. If the state is allowed to come into a religious institution and tell it what it should believe (like some parts of europe and asia - communism, monarchies) and Apple supports that, then will Apple also financially support a push to bring prayer into schools? If not, then that would seem inconsistent and very hypocritical. It's gotta go both ways to be fair Apple, or you have an open agenda in my opinion. Just my thoughts...

you'll get flamed for that - just FYI. Sorry, you aren't allowed to disagree or else you're just a "bigot." Those asking for tolerance (at least a lot of the ones on here) have no idea how to tolerate others views themselves. Interesting how those pushing same-sex marriage are being just as intolerant as those viscously opposed to it (again, for the most part, there are some moderates out there who respect intelligent points but they are few and far between on this thread)

Why wait? This looks like a free for all to me. Let keep off topic and keep abortion safe, available everywhere and rare! That would mean NOT voting for Palin. Anyone disagree? I am hoping for silence. All of this and we still don't know where Bill Gates stands on Prop 8.

Marriage, as currently defined in the US has nothing to do with faith! It is a civil institution, which means that it is governed by our laws. Marriage rights are granted to you by the state and as such, they must be granted equally and fairly. To make this perfectly clear, you cannot have a marriage authorized by your church. You must apply for and be granted a license by one state or another or even a different country for it to be legally recognized.

If marriage is such a sacred thing, then let's clean it up. In most, if not all, states, a heterosexual couple must do nothing more than cohabitate for a few years and they are legally married, even though they did not partake of a religious union. Let's eliminate divorce altogether as it is anti-marriage, so it must be against God's will, right? Certainly the quickie marriages in Vegas should be halted. And while we're at it, if you're not having kids, no marriage for you!

At any rate, I think the ultimate solution to all of this is to split marriage into the two components that it really is: civil rights and religious dogma. The state would grant civil rights to all who apply for them and the churches can do whatever they want to do (as they are now and will continue to do well into the future). If you want a religious marriage, go to your church and get married. If you want any legal benefits/protections, go to the state. You can have one or the other or both, if that's what you desire.

See how easy this is to solve?

wow. you seem pretty agitated about this topic. why is it not enough to have a civil union that has the same legal rights as a married straight couple? i am asking this not as a point of counter-argument but trying to understand (understand civilly if that is possible on this heated topic). It seems like you think gay couples should have the same legal rights. I agree. It seems you do not want just legal rights but to also redefine what marriage means?? am i correct?

i do fully agree with you about cleaning marriage up. there is way too much divorce. if you know of any self-reflecting adult who comes from a divorced family, they will tell you divorce had a negative impact (usually a significant one at that) on them somehow. And the co-habitation thing...i agree. maybe that should be called a civil union??

btw...I never said kids were a prerequisite for marriage. please do not put words in my mouth.

I think you and I are agreeing more than you might think. The only divergence is the semantics of the word "marriage." Is that a fair analysis?

Get the government out of the marriage business. It should be contract law.

How can you have a contract law and not have the government get involved? Who mediates the inevitable contractual issues?

HAH! I always knew Steve had a boyfriend, and all this time everyone thought I was crazy.

Bah

I always thought the beau was Jony Ive

Yeah, clearly it has no importance to people like you. You only wave the parts of the flag you agree with.



I ask you....
Does not this sound like a little bit like Mullah Omar?

Shame On Apple!
Shame on Apple and on those who support this abomination! This is SICK, WICKED and WRONG! God is ever so merciful but He cannot let such wickedness last and He will execute His pure and righteous judgment for such abominable acts of sin! Repent NOW, you sinful and wicked United States of America! Forbid the murdering of unborn babies! Forbid homosexuality! Forbid gay marriage! REPENT! Turn back to God before it's too late!

C.

I have no problem with the state getting out of the marriage business and leaving that to the various religious institutions. In other words, let the church keep the word marriage and let the state provide the legal contracts.

However, the problem is that this very reasonable 'solution' seems to have few proponents and is not really on the table right now. CA supreme court made a decision based on the states practice of handing out marriage licenses and now we have groups trying to defeat that decision. That is the issue up for this election.

Carniphage, good to see you again.

Universal morality? I thought that the current in-vogue philosophy was that each person has their own personal morality, and that each individual's personal morals are no better and no worse than any other individual's personal morals. Universal morality is too narrow-minded in this day and age.

You are most certainly right that there are basic human rights and a universal morality. However, this universal morality did not just coagulate of its own accord. The one who created us set up the rules of right and wrong, morality and immorality.

Near the beginning of our Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Even our founding fathers, in the construction of this country, tipped their hand to our Creator, and claimed that it was our Creator who gave us these rights.

The people of California voted and passed the law stating that marriage was between one man and one women - its called democracy when the people vote. The four judges who over-ruled the will of the people are corrupt and abused their power.

Apple is a public company that is owned by the stock holders and represents employees who have a broad view of beliefs, Apple executives and/or Steve Jobs has no right to make political statements for all of the stock holders and/or the employees. Apple is in the consumer electronics business to make money for the stock holders. If Steve Jobs and the Apple executives feel this issue is so important, they should make personal donations. Comments on this forum have stated people who disagree should not buy Apple products. If Apple feels this is such an important human rights issue, they should make a statement that they only want people who agree with their political agenda to buy their products - profit/money should not matter if this is so important to Apple. It was Apple who made this a vital human rights issue, not the consumers demanding that Apple do anything. Consumers just want Apple to create great products.

I have also read a number of folks saying that no one complained when companies started supporting same sex partner benefits. I worked at IBM when they started same sex partner benefits and the executives just told us we were supporting same sex partners. They didn't ask the employees to vote on the change, because if they did - it never would have passed.

The "old books", moral character and common sense are timeless. If anything, the matured 21st century has only shown that nothing is new since the beginning. The free world has become consumed with making sure "everyone is happy", "don't hurt anyone's feelings", "there is no right or wrong", "do it if it makes you feel good". The enemies of the free world will never need to fire a shot - we are destroying ourselves from within. The people of hollywood, mainstream media, liberal free thinkers, schools and colleges and most European countries are only worried about making sure everyone is happy and we can talk to everyone who disagrees.

I served my country and came close to losing my life; brave men/women are dying today and many have died from the past. We believe in the freedom of the PEOPLE and not the rule of the few in government, judges, United Nations, corporate executives......etc. Many who have written in this forum, mainstream media, hollywood, politicians, corporate executives would be shocked to learn how much soldiers disagree with their views. The United States has spread freedom thru-out the world with the blood and sacrifice of its soldiers and we have never worried if our enemies feelings were hurt and how happy they were. The people in hollywood, mainstream media, colleges, liberal free world thinkers and most European countries today are more concerned about being happy, not hurting anyones feelings, right and wrong is up to each individual, live for today......etc.

The free world has become the spoiled, uncontrollable child - "It's all about me", "there is no wrong", "I want everything now", "make me happy", "I want what they have and deserve it".....etc.

People that are able to legally enter into a contract would make their own agreement. They may use a contract provided by a church, a lawyer or the office supply store. It's much like a Partnership agreement. It might address many issues and it might address a few. The State would not be making the rules concerning marriage other then the typical contract prohibitions on dishonest dealings and protections for children. You can enforce a contract in court or through arbitration. Think domestic partnership for everyone.

Gay marriage is not a legal right. It's not an issue of equality or equal rights. Marriage is about a relationship that only members of the opposite sex can qualify for. Marriage needs to be a protected class all by itself.

I am a small AAPL shareholder. I disapprove of my company's money fighting against the move secure marriage, to secure the traditional family - a slowly diminishing minority in world.

Absolutely.

I'm astonished at the homophobia, playground-esque jibes and ignorance coming out here.

I'm curious to know how much of this vile, bigoted sentiment is coming from the US and how much is coming from Europe?



Was there so much outcry when Apple posted a photograph of Rosa Parks shortly after here death? Should they have got involved in race issues?!

Come on. God* doesn't care!



*Terms and conditions of existence apply!

It's because of that thinking that Apple et al. are publicly opposing Prop. 8.

Thanks for the primer, troll.

Now I suppose you'll be forbidden from buying virtually any kind of vehicle, since the major car manufacturers have similar pro-gay policies.

Enjoy your walk.

I am an AAPL stockholder too. But I am selling my stock on Monday morning, regardless of price. Any company that uses its stockholders' money this way doesn't need my support.

No different than any other contract. Mandatory mediation could be standard.

Gays already have those rights without marriage in California.

This law would force gay issues to be part of religion. It's only a matter of time before churches which choose not to perform gay marriages are sued. And as things stand now that lawsuit would probably hold up in court. So it does force gay marriage onto religion.

Apple should stay out of this. It is just bad policy for companies to take political sides, especially heated ones like this. They risk offending large numbers of potential customers.

You know that isn't true. Stop spreading lies.

My oh my, what a strict moral compass we have...


We'd better look in to all of our investments and consumerism then...corporate sponsored genocide, back-handers, weapons manufacturing & export, hazardous waste dumping and shady dealings galore are what you'll find if you read between the lines and do a little research. Kind of makes Apple's dream of free love and happiness for all somewhat mild...

That was an amazing post. Thanks for sharing!

I'm sure you'll enjoy quite a loss on your investment (assuming you really are a shareholder). LOL!

First... Kudos to AI for not banning free speech. MacRumors.com has locked their thread on the whole 'Apple contribution to CA's Prop 8' saying it has run the "gamut". That probably would have been true after a few days to a week as the story faded with new accounts on other Apple stories and rumors, but MacRumors.com decided to stop the "rights" of people "to peacefully assemble" for the purpose of "freedom of speech" which, they as a private entity have, but way uncool!

Forget abortion. Out of the many things that have come out of Obama's mouth, none were ever truer then the words he spoke at the Saddleback Q&A with Rick Warren regarding the question, "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?", to which Obama replied "above my pay grade.", like so many other things are.

What a conundrum it must be to not support life that according to the US Declaration of Independence, which only gives the reason why the colonies broke away from Great Britain, where as the Constitution of the US is the actual guideline and Supreme Law of our land, but since others have brought up that whole "pursuit of happiness" phrase from the US Declaration of Independence, I'd like to bring up the phrase that comes just before the 'pursuit' thing and that is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life". Can you support one, "Pursuit..." while disregarding the other, "Right to Life..." and still be correct?

The democrats in Congress have always asked why the Bush administration is fighting two wars without any "sacrifices"! What's up with that? Okay, I get it, democrats think the war in Iraq that their VP candidate, Joe Biden, as a US Senator voted for, took our eye off the ball. However, you would think Obama's vast Ivy League learning would have led him to pick a VP candidate who supposedly vast knowledge on foreign affairs, would be on the same page of a major issue that has consumed their party since the spring of 2003 when some showed no confidence in the US military but were being refuted. "Gen. Scales was by far one of the most competent military analysts (Fox News) during the war. As the war "bogged down" (after four days!) and second guessing began, pundits, military and civilian alike rushed in to suggest that we would have to "revise the strategy" to avoid a "quagmire." As others were losing their heads, Gen. Scales reminded viewers that "the main thing in war is to make sure that ’the main thing’ remains the main thing." (http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...4/iraqwar.html)

First to the democrats in Congress who are saying there is no sacrifice, I say "YOU FIRST!" When was the last time the government every sacrificed anything? Of either party?! Second, why would you want your constituents to sacrifice in the first place? Sounds absurd! Finally, I heard on the news where if the democrats gain control of the government, they want to reduce the defense budget. "Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will "eventually" raise taxes." (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008...ual-tax-hikes/)

Hold on to your wallets folks!

Cut the defense budget by 25%?! The sacrifices those democrats keep talking about, I guess we now know who will be doing the sacrificing! And they wonder why people see democrats as weak on national security!

Finally, no silence here... I'm voting for Governor Palin! Senator McCain, can come along for the ride. Although we will have to wait until Nov. 4th for the ultimate conclusion, if she wins, it will be the ultimate poke in the eye to every leftist elitist be it women's organizations, tv talks shows, newspapers and magazines, the drive-by lame street media, Hollywood's elitist "know it all" and other "entertainers", and leftists liberals of all stripes. It would not be the reason for my voting for her, just an added bonus! Especially seeing NBC's SNL's, Tina Fey, having to say "America's Great, Golly G!" - priceless. I bet Tina is grinding her teeth to little stubs with every Pro-America utterance she has to read from the tele prompter!

EDIT: Going through all the crap that Governor Palin went through, be it "US" magazines unflattering cover page photo to a porn movie with a Governor Palin look a like, this lady, IMHO, has endured more trials and tribulations then any politician in recent times. Criticize her policy standings all you like, I have no problem with that, but when you deride her as human being as has been done by all those "tolerant" people from the left, then I have problem. I know one thing, she has more character and poise and strength then Obama ever will when it comes to grace regarding being poked fun of as in this example of Obama...

"In the third-last paragraph of her October 21, 2006 “Obama’s Project Runway” column (the one that, luckily for Barack Obama, almost no one outside of Manhattan reads), the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd wrote this about Barack Obama:

He’s intriguingly imperfect: His ears stick out, he smokes, and he’s written about wrestling with pot, booze and ”maybe a little blow” as a young man.

On Sunday, December 10, roughly 50 days later, noted in a column by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama took on Dowd over arguably the least relevant item in that sentence:

Obama is very sensitive about his press. After his press conference, he headed toward New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and chided her — in a kidding way — for a comment in the 12th of 14 paragraphs in an Oct. 21 column. She wrote that Obama’s “ears stick out.”

“I just want to put you on notice,” he said.

“I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.”

Wow — 50 days later, the guy was still stewing over four words about his ears."

(http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/12/15/...r-hes-all-man/)

Yes, I am voting for Sarah Palin with no apologies, none what so ever!

first of all, this is a civil issue (one that, on this forum, should concern only how it might affect apple ... i might take the long way, but i'll get to that). despite the inspiration many of the framers took from religion, many others were decidedly nonreligious. they agreed, however, on the separation of church and state. as such, the views of religious institutions should not impact domestic policy. so if you disagree on religious grounds, that's perfectly fine, but don't use it as the basis for wanting a DOMA on a state or federal level. you need to prove that gay marriage would be unconstitutional.

and speaking of unconstitutional things, judges are not required or expected to obey the will of the people ... they are tasked with weighing the laws against the constitution. so by "legislating from the bench," they are simply doing the job we've given them (in an ideal world ... it would be naive to assume none let personal opinion to slip in). they strike down or uphold laws according to their constitutional duties.

the fallacy with asking why pro-gay marriage groups are pushing this (since many rights are already afforded them) is that it goes back to "separate-but-equal."

surprise, it's not all that equal.

to summarize this increasingly lengthy post, apple is simply going with what's best for the company, while staying true to their beliefs. they reside in a left-leaning state with a more active homosexual community, public policy seems to be drifting in the direction of either marriage or civil unions for homosexual companies (and they can appear to be forward-thinking), and they can keep a large part of their work force proud of the company they work for. they might lose a few shareholders, customers or employees as a result, but the long-term benefits far outweigh those losses.

oh, and on a personal note, if i see the phrases "nancy boy" or "fruit" again, i might blow a gasket. i'm a straight man, but something about that whole "all men are created equal" just stuck with me.

maybe it's just me.

If the price is right, I am buying. Thanks Appledecider.