From a European perspective it's really weird how you Americans, mix up everything and call it political. This is a human rights issue, not a political one. Just as climate change is an environmental and scientific issue, not a political one. I guess this polarisation is the result of your politics system with only 2 parties. It's beyond me how this can ever work as you can never have just two opposing views on every matter in the world. (Especially if those two views are right and far right.)
Good for Apple for taking a stance in important social and environmental issues. As companies have more power than governments nowadays, it's good to see that they are interested in more than just selling goods.
It actually is a serious problem in a two party system. Worse, as you point out, the two parties are nearly identical on most issues. All the people screaming that the current president is a socialist don't seem to actually know what that word means. We have, at best, a right of center government, and 1/3rd of voters think it is extremely left. I blame our education system...
If all of Apple's competitors are for it -- as I am sure they are -- it offers no competitive advantage whatsoever to Apple.
As to your point about 'Christians' that's pure nonsense.
The issue involving marriage may be well accepted in the U.S. and most secular countries which are in the process of revising their axiomatic foundations for morality. This, however, is not universally accepted. Moreover the framing of it as one of social "equality" was a coup by the supporters of the winning side. There are many people, perhaps a vast majority, on earth who do not see the redefinition of marriage as a trivial matter. Apple has been very outspoken on this issue to the point of flying the rainbow flag when the court victory was achieved. This type of gesture does not endear the company to those who feel strongly on the other side. The categorization of those opposed as bigots, believers in science fiction/religion, etc ... is not helping. If Apple wants to end up only selling to secular types then they are off to a good start.
Things change quickly. Apple is on a roll with the iPhone. That could quickly change and the company had better hope that no one has a better trick up their sleeves. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Cook. But I do think he should not be acting the way he is in his capacity of CEO of Apple.
The issue involving marriage may be well accepted in the U.S. and most secular countries which are in the process of revising their axiomatic foundations for morality.
There is no "axiomatic foundation for morality" that says you should be a bigot. The primary normative moral systems are Utilitarian, Deontological, Virtue, and Command. None of them require gay bashing. In fact 3 of the 4 have very good arguments for advancing equal rights. I am not sensing a lot of hope that you actually understand morality at this point.
This, however, is not universally accepted.
Rights are not something to be voted on, so acceptance is irrelevant.
Moreover the framing of it as one of social "equality" was a coup by the supporters of the winning side.
Not to mention reality. If two people are given different rights, the request that the rights are made equal is exactly a matter of equality. Your attempt to redefine the language is a failure.
There are many people, perhaps a vast majority, on earth who do not see the redefinition of marriage as a trivial matter.
Which would matter if a) that were true, or b) it hadn't been done multiple times before. Remember when two people couldn't marry because of skin color? Remember when women were property? When only a certain land owning class could marry? When marriage was about family power? Or even, if you go back far enough, when same sex marriage was allowed thousands of years ago? Why was it allowed to be redefined then?
Apple has been very outspoken on this issue to the point of flying the rainbow flag when the court victory was achieved. This type of gesture does not endear the company to those who feel strongly on the other side.
And those people, like you, can go away. Civilized humans won't miss you.
The categorization of those opposed as bigots, believers in science fiction/religion, etc ... is not helping.
It doesn't matter if it helps. It is a fact. You are a misinformed fable believing bigoted moron. You should try to change that. Human kind has developed a great deal since the childish backwards bronze age morons wrote the fables that would become the bible.
If Apple wants to end up only selling to secular types then they are off to a good start.
A majority of religious people also support marriage equality. So you are wrong. Deeply. They wouldn't be selling to only secular types (the fastest growing population BTW) but to non-backward types.
Things change quickly. Apple is on a roll with the iPhone. That could quickly change and the company had better hope that no one has a better trick up their sleeves. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Cook. But I do think he should not be acting the way he is in his capacity of CEO of Apple.
Things do change quickly. Two years ago a majority were against equality. Not today. The bigots are now out numbered.I have no respect for you, but I do think you should not be acting this way in your capacity of trying to pass for a human being.
If all of Apple's competitors are for it -- as I am sure they are -- it offers no competitive advantage whatsoever to Apple.
As to your point about 'Christians' that's pure nonsense.
I don't see the nonsense. He is right, the people opposing equality are christians in name only, and many if not most of those "christians" will continue to give money to mega church idiots to buy luxury jets while people die of hunger and oppose sex ed while people die of STIs. They are scum.
A real Christian is a different matter. That Jesus guy said "as much as ye have done it to the least of these ye have done it to me." How do think he feels when the fake Christians scream hate at two people trying to have a loving life together?
As Jesus said about homosexuality:
Quote:
Which is really all you need to know about the false Christians today.
The issue involving marriage may be well accepted in the U.S. and most secular countries which are in the process of revising their axiomatic foundations for morality. This, however, is not universally accepted. Moreover the framing of it as one of social "equality" was a coup by the supporters of the winning side. There are many people, perhaps a vast majority, on earth who do not see the redefinition of marriage as a trivial matter. Apple has been very outspoken on this issue to the point of flying the rainbow flag when the court victory was achieved. This type of gesture does not endear the company to those who feel strongly on the other side. The categorization of those opposed as bigots, believers in science fiction/religion, etc ... is not helping. If Apple wants to end up only selling to secular types then they are off to a good start.
Things change quickly. Apple is on a roll with the iPhone. That could quickly change and the company had better hope that no one has a better trick up their sleeves. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Cook. But I do think he should not be acting the way he is in his capacity of CEO of Apple.
Whoa. Hold on there, with the broad brush. Apple has categorized no one a bigot or anything remotely similar.
You're welcome to conflate your consumption habits with the 'morality' of the country from whence the product comes, but you might be being a tad hypocritical here. Are you sure you've never consumed Saudi oil or Chinese-made (including Apple's, since they're all assembled there) products?
Btw, does that mean Facebook, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. should have 'better tricks up their sleeves' too? Or are you holding Apple to a different standard?
If all of Apple's competitors are for it -- as I am sure they are -- it offers no competitive advantage whatsoever to Apple.
As to your point about 'Christians' that's pure nonsense.
I don't see the nonsense. He is right, the people opposing equality are christians in name only, and many if not most of those "christians" will continue to give money to mega church idiots to buy luxury jets while people die of hunger and oppose sex ed while people die of STIs. They are scum.
A real Christian is a different matter. That Jesus guy said "as much as ye have done it to the least of these ye have done it to me." How do think he feels when the fake Christians scream hate at two people trying to have a loving life together?
As Jesus said about homosexuality:
Which is really all you need to know about the false Christians today.
Leaving aside the fact that you may be no expert on Christianity -- I certainly am not -- I did not see him making exceptions to particular types of 'Christians' in his post.
So, is everyone from other religions, say, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism fine with homosexuality? In what way are 'Christians' unique in this regard? Unless you can tell me, I have to say that your post also sounds bigoted against Christians. (Fwiw, I am not Christian).
Leaving aside the fact that you may be no expert on Christianity -- I certainly am not -- I did not see him making exceptions to particular types of 'Christians' in his post.
So, is everyone from other religions, say, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism fine with homosexuality? In what way are 'Christians' unique in this regard? Unless you can tell me, I have to say that your post also sounds bigoted against Christians. (Fwiw, I am not Christian).
I actually teach a world religions class. Not the point though.
I assume his placing "christians" in quotes to be a reference to those people who claim the name but don't live actually teaching of the radical rabbi's that we today collect under one guys name. It is possible he doesn't intend that. Making that assumption, I track those who least follow the original teachings as those who today practice (In america at least, where the court decision counts) what we sometimes call prosperity theology. Followers of this fundamentalist and deeply inaccurate doctrine also have a high rate of opposition to rights of the LGBTQ and hate the social contract and its extensions in welfare in America.
As to other faiths, like christianity, that depends. Since christianity is the dominant faith in America, they matter most in many ways. And despite those who claim christianity as as against LGBTQ, the majority of christians, like all Americans, have supported equal rights for a almost a year now according to most polls.
Islam seems to be a minority for support, mostly among the more mystical groups, like Sufi. Hinduism had a long running acceptance of homosexuality in the past, but today is mostly divided. Judaism is the reverse of the Vedanta Veda, as it was strictly outlawed through most of history but is today being reevaluated. Taoism, Zen and Buddhism have some divisions as well, but in general the more conservative schools of Buddhism (Tibetan for example) still have some doubts about LGBTQ issues, where more modern schools have no real issues.
Or to be more direct, I am a huge fan of those christians who actually bother to study and learn about the original faith. I sound bigoted against the modern CINO (Christian in Name Only) type who have no actual understanding of the bible, Jesus, their own history, or the writings of great christians like Aquinas, because they are just hiding their bigotry in what they think their belief says. They need an education.
I actually teach a world religions class. Not the point though.
I assume his placing "christians" in quotes to be a reference to those people who claim the name but don't live actually teaching of the radical rabbi's that we today collect under one guys name. It is possible he doesn't intend that. Making that assumption, I track those who least follow the original teachings as those who today practice (In america at least, where the court decision counts) what we sometimes call prosperity theology. Followers of this fundamentalist and deeply inaccurate doctrine also have a high rate of opposition to rights of the LGBTQ and hate the social contract and its extensions in welfare in America.
As to other faiths, like christianity, that depends. Since christianity is the dominant faith in America, they matter most in many ways. And despite those who claim christianity as as against LGBTQ, the majority of christians, like all Americans, have supported equal rights for a almost a year now according to most polls.
Islam seems to be a minority for support, mostly among the more mystical groups, like Sufi. Hinduism had a long running acceptance of homosexuality in the past, but today is mostly divided. Judaism is the reverse of the Vedanta Veda, as it was strictly outlawed through most of history but is today being reevaluated. Taoism, Zen and Buddhism have some divisions as well, but in general the more conservative schools of Buddhism (Tibetan for example) still have some doubts about LGBTQ issues, where more modern schools have no real issues.
Or to be more direct, I am a huge fan of those christians who actually bother to study and learn about the original faith. I sound bigoted against the modern CINO (Christian in Name Only) type who have no actual understanding of the bible, Jesus, their own history, or the writings of great christians like Aquinas, because they are just hiding their bigotry in what they think their belief says. They need an education.
Perhaps, as a religion teacher who sounds thoroughly condescending ("christians who actually bother to study and learn about the original faith") you should ponder this question: why is it that the only countries where same-sex marriage is legal are majority-Christian?
Why is it not legal anywhere else, including all the majority-Muslim, -Hindu, -Judaic, -Buddhist countries? Heck, I can't even think of an officially non-religious country where it's legal (not sure about Cuba).
Your attempt at some sort of implied equivalence ("as to other faiths, like christianity, it depends") is just bs.
One minor point, since you're a religion teacher: don't you tell your students that the names of these religions should be capitalized? (I find it curious -- no, telling -- that you capitalized the names of every religion except Christianity).
Another minor point. Go back and take another look at who placed "christians" in quotes. Hint: it was not the poster to whom I was responding (and, in turn, with whom you were agreeing).
I'd like to thank all of the bigots and backwoods denizens for so clearly identifying themselves in this thread. It's nice to be able to block so many morons so easily. I expect to have a much higher percentage of sane, reasonable posts to read in the future.
Perhaps, as a religion teacher who sounds thoroughly condescending ("christians who actually bother to study and learn about the original faith") you should ponder this question: why is it that the only countries where same-sex marriage is legal are majority-Christian?
Why is it not legal anywhere else, including all the majority-Muslim, -Hindu, -Judaic, -Buddhist countries? Heck, I can't even think of an officially non-religious country where it's legal (not sure about Cuba).
Your attempt at some sort of implied equivalence ("as to other faiths, like christianity, it depends") is just bs.
One minor point, since you're a religion teacher: don't you tell your students that the names of these religions should be capitalized? (I find it curious -- no, telling -- that you capitalized the names of every religion except Christianity).
Another minor point. Go back and take another look at who placed "christians" in quotes. Hint: it was not the poster to whom I was responding (and, in turn, with whom you were agreeing).
You have no idea how condensing I am over this. I teach world religion and ethics. When people talk about morality and gay marriage in religion even though they have literally no experience with ethics and never learned their faith tradition I am far more than condescending. And they deserve worse.
Imagine a "feminist" tells you they are a feminist but that they don't think women deserve rights. In fact they are sub human. Imagine a person who calls themselves a mathematician but has no grasp of calc, geometry, algebra or even addition. Imagine a "scientist" who thinks all knowledge is derived from asking a magic genie. These things are all on par with the depressingly large part of the American populace that calls themselves "christian" because they think gay people are icky and Jesus wants you to be wealthy. They are morons.
Same sex marriage is in fact legal in many other countries, the first, if i recall, was Denmark, a majority agnostic/atheist country.
I am not implying equivalence between faiths in attitude about LGBTQ rights except in so far as in all faiths there are branches that openly accept LGBTQ and branches that strongly condemn, and everything in between.
You may find the capitalization of anything telling, but you should tell it to the keyboard on my phone, which I assumed was automatically capitalizing words, and I frankly just didn't bother to check. If you think something that small is "telling" then I will be sure not answer posts on my phone while i garden.
Reading posts on the phone may also be the issue about who you are responding to and how I read them. But honestly, since "Christianity" got both lower and upper case treatment, in many posts, including yours, maybe you are making too much of it? Nah.....
You have no idea how condensing I am over this. I teach world religion and ethics. When people talk about morality and gay marriage in religion even though they have literally no experience with ethics and never learned their faith tradition I am far more than condescending. And they deserve worse.
Imagine a "feminist" tells you they are a feminist but that they don't think women deserve rights. In fact they are sub human. Imagine a person who calls themselves a mathematician but has no grasp of calc, geometry, algebra or even addition. Imagine a "scientist" who thinks all knowledge is derived from asking a magic genie. These things are all on par with the depressingly large part of the American populace that calls themselves "christian" because they think gay people are icky and Jesus wants you to be wealthy. They are morons.
Same sex marriage is in fact legal in many other countries, the first, if i recall, was Denmark, a majority agnostic/atheist country.
I am not implying equivalence between faiths in attitude about LGBTQ rights except in so far as in all faiths there are branches that openly accept LGBTQ and branches that strongly condemn, and everything in between.
You may find the capitalization of anything telling, but you should tell it to the keyboard on my phone, which I assumed was automatically capitalizing words, and I frankly just didn't bother to check. If you think something that small is "telling" then I will be sure not answer posts on my phone while i garden.
Reading posts on the phone may also be the issue about who you are responding to and how I read them. But honestly, since "Christianity" got both lower and upper case treatment, in many posts, including yours, maybe you are making too much of it? Nah.....
I have no idea what to make of your nonsensically stream-of-consciousness blather, but let me address just one: Christianity got a lower-case treatment in my posts only when I was quoting you or that other guy (OP).
It always gets an upper case treatment, as does a reference to any other major religion.
A 'condensing' teacher, indeed. Good luck with the topic.
I think it's a little more basic than that. Greater diversity means greater opportunity for mate selection and better hunting (for money).
I wouldn't put It in terms of searching for a mate but you do have point that there is more opportunity for different enthicities to live together in the cities. That is why in California we have China town, Korea Town, little Saigon. Santa Ana etc. Although Latinos share some ideals with Republicans such as Christianity and pro-life, and they may be either conservative or liberal they are generally anti-republican as Republicans are mostly viewed as pandering to the wealthy.
To expand on my previous post, I think other reasons for cities to be more liberal is that they are home to many top universities which historically are more liberal. Another factor is that creatives can more easily find employment in the cities in careers such as fashion, art, media, music and culinary and those people tend to be left leaning philisofically as well.
Finally, I feel that the welfare recipient demographic is somewhat irrelevant as they are generally not a very big turnout for elections although if they do vote, they are also generally anti-republican viewed as a rich white guy club.
I have no idea what to make of your nonsensically stream-of-consciousness blather...
Really? An extended analogy is too much for you? Well at least we know that being on the right side of history doesn't mean you are on the right side of the IQ gap. Maybe someone will dumb it down for you.
Whoa. Hold on there, with the broad brush. Apple has categorized no one a bigot or anything remotely similar.
You're welcome to conflate your consumption habits with the 'morality' of the country from whence the product comes, but you might be being a tad hypocritical here. Are you sure you've never consumed Saudi oil or Chinese-made (including Apple's, since they're all assembled there) products?
Btw, does that mean Facebook, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. should have 'better tricks up their sleeves' too? Or are you holding Apple to a different standard?
(Fixed a couple of typos).
Once again Anant vents his nitpicking negativity on this forum. And he's wrong about Apple not having categorized people as bigots.
Rubbish! They collapsed because their politico-economic system was superseded by a better one. For example, the British Empire collapsed after WW2 not because it had suddenly become gay (homosexuality was still illegal and enforced then), but because the colonial economic system broke up.
The bottom line is that your constitution enshrines as a right the pursuit of happiness for all, and that's a great ideal so it's good to see the SC uphold it in this case.
Religion? Politics? Ethics? Moral? Products are products. Without any discrimination everybody can use Apple products. I'm not interested in your politics your moral and your religion in this forum with focus on technology products.
The mission is very easy. Apple improves and enriches your life. It doesn't matter where you come from what you think and what you are doing.
As European and especially as German I appreciate the great American appleinsider for its high quality of product, enterprise and market knowledge.
I'm also not interested in Tim Cook's personal orientation. But what I'm interested in, is, what he is doing with Apple and all the inferior products that we all receive from Apple.
Comments
From a European perspective it's really weird how you Americans, mix up everything and call it political. This is a human rights issue, not a political one. Just as climate change is an environmental and scientific issue, not a political one. I guess this polarisation is the result of your politics system with only 2 parties. It's beyond me how this can ever work as you can never have just two opposing views on every matter in the world. (Especially if those two views are right and far right.)
Good for Apple for taking a stance in important social and environmental issues. As companies have more power than governments nowadays, it's good to see that they are interested in more than just selling goods.
It actually is a serious problem in a two party system. Worse, as you point out, the two parties are nearly identical on most issues. All the people screaming that the current president is a socialist don't seem to actually know what that word means. We have, at best, a right of center government, and 1/3rd of voters think it is extremely left. I blame our education system...
The issue involving marriage may be well accepted in the U.S. and most secular countries which are in the process of revising their axiomatic foundations for morality. This, however, is not universally accepted. Moreover the framing of it as one of social "equality" was a coup by the supporters of the winning side. There are many people, perhaps a vast majority, on earth who do not see the redefinition of marriage as a trivial matter. Apple has been very outspoken on this issue to the point of flying the rainbow flag when the court victory was achieved. This type of gesture does not endear the company to those who feel strongly on the other side. The categorization of those opposed as bigots, believers in science fiction/religion, etc ... is not helping. If Apple wants to end up only selling to secular types then they are off to a good start.
Things change quickly. Apple is on a roll with the iPhone. That could quickly change and the company had better hope that no one has a better trick up their sleeves. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Cook. But I do think he should not be acting the way he is in his capacity of CEO of Apple.
The issue involving marriage may be well accepted in the U.S. and most secular countries which are in the process of revising their axiomatic foundations for morality.
There is no "axiomatic foundation for morality" that says you should be a bigot. The primary normative moral systems are Utilitarian, Deontological, Virtue, and Command. None of them require gay bashing. In fact 3 of the 4 have very good arguments for advancing equal rights. I am not sensing a lot of hope that you actually understand morality at this point.
This, however, is not universally accepted.
Rights are not something to be voted on, so acceptance is irrelevant.
Not to mention reality. If two people are given different rights, the request that the rights are made equal is exactly a matter of equality. Your attempt to redefine the language is a failure.
Which would matter if a) that were true, or b) it hadn't been done multiple times before. Remember when two people couldn't marry because of skin color? Remember when women were property? When only a certain land owning class could marry? When marriage was about family power? Or even, if you go back far enough, when same sex marriage was allowed thousands of years ago? Why was it allowed to be redefined then?
And those people, like you, can go away. Civilized humans won't miss you.
It doesn't matter if it helps. It is a fact. You are a misinformed fable believing bigoted moron. You should try to change that. Human kind has developed a great deal since the childish backwards bronze age morons wrote the fables that would become the bible.
A majority of religious people also support marriage equality. So you are wrong. Deeply. They wouldn't be selling to only secular types (the fastest growing population BTW) but to non-backward types.
Things do change quickly. Two years ago a majority were against equality. Not today. The bigots are now out numbered.I have no respect for you, but I do think you should not be acting this way in your capacity of trying to pass for a human being.
If all of Apple's competitors are for it -- as I am sure they are -- it offers no competitive advantage whatsoever to Apple.
As to your point about 'Christians' that's pure nonsense.
I don't see the nonsense. He is right, the people opposing equality are christians in name only, and many if not most of those "christians" will continue to give money to mega church idiots to buy luxury jets while people die of hunger and oppose sex ed while people die of STIs. They are scum.
A real Christian is a different matter. That Jesus guy said "as much as ye have done it to the least of these ye have done it to me." How do think he feels when the fake Christians scream hate at two people trying to have a loving life together?
As Jesus said about homosexuality:
Which is really all you need to know about the false Christians today.
Whoa. Hold on there, with the broad brush. Apple has categorized no one a bigot or anything remotely similar.
You're welcome to conflate your consumption habits with the 'morality' of the country from whence the product comes, but you might be being a tad hypocritical here. Are you sure you've never consumed Saudi oil or Chinese-made (including Apple's, since they're all assembled there) products?
Btw, does that mean Facebook, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. should have 'better tricks up their sleeves' too? Or are you holding Apple to a different standard?
(Fixed a couple of typos).
Leaving aside the fact that you may be no expert on Christianity -- I certainly am not -- I did not see him making exceptions to particular types of 'Christians' in his post.
So, is everyone from other religions, say, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism fine with homosexuality? In what way are 'Christians' unique in this regard? Unless you can tell me, I have to say that your post also sounds bigoted against Christians. (Fwiw, I am not Christian).
Leaving aside the fact that you may be no expert on Christianity -- I certainly am not -- I did not see him making exceptions to particular types of 'Christians' in his post.
So, is everyone from other religions, say, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism fine with homosexuality? In what way are 'Christians' unique in this regard? Unless you can tell me, I have to say that your post also sounds bigoted against Christians. (Fwiw, I am not Christian).
I actually teach a world religions class. Not the point though.
I assume his placing "christians" in quotes to be a reference to those people who claim the name but don't live actually teaching of the radical rabbi's that we today collect under one guys name. It is possible he doesn't intend that. Making that assumption, I track those who least follow the original teachings as those who today practice (In america at least, where the court decision counts) what we sometimes call prosperity theology. Followers of this fundamentalist and deeply inaccurate doctrine also have a high rate of opposition to rights of the LGBTQ and hate the social contract and its extensions in welfare in America.
As to other faiths, like christianity, that depends. Since christianity is the dominant faith in America, they matter most in many ways. And despite those who claim christianity as as against LGBTQ, the majority of christians, like all Americans, have supported equal rights for a almost a year now according to most polls.
Islam seems to be a minority for support, mostly among the more mystical groups, like Sufi. Hinduism had a long running acceptance of homosexuality in the past, but today is mostly divided. Judaism is the reverse of the Vedanta Veda, as it was strictly outlawed through most of history but is today being reevaluated. Taoism, Zen and Buddhism have some divisions as well, but in general the more conservative schools of Buddhism (Tibetan for example) still have some doubts about LGBTQ issues, where more modern schools have no real issues.
Or to be more direct, I am a huge fan of those christians who actually bother to study and learn about the original faith. I sound bigoted against the modern CINO (Christian in Name Only) type who have no actual understanding of the bible, Jesus, their own history, or the writings of great christians like Aquinas, because they are just hiding their bigotry in what they think their belief says. They need an education.
I actually teach a world religions class. Not the point though.
I assume his placing "christians" in quotes to be a reference to those people who claim the name but don't live actually teaching of the radical rabbi's that we today collect under one guys name. It is possible he doesn't intend that. Making that assumption, I track those who least follow the original teachings as those who today practice (In america at least, where the court decision counts) what we sometimes call prosperity theology. Followers of this fundamentalist and deeply inaccurate doctrine also have a high rate of opposition to rights of the LGBTQ and hate the social contract and its extensions in welfare in America.
As to other faiths, like christianity, that depends. Since christianity is the dominant faith in America, they matter most in many ways. And despite those who claim christianity as as against LGBTQ, the majority of christians, like all Americans, have supported equal rights for a almost a year now according to most polls.
Islam seems to be a minority for support, mostly among the more mystical groups, like Sufi. Hinduism had a long running acceptance of homosexuality in the past, but today is mostly divided. Judaism is the reverse of the Vedanta Veda, as it was strictly outlawed through most of history but is today being reevaluated. Taoism, Zen and Buddhism have some divisions as well, but in general the more conservative schools of Buddhism (Tibetan for example) still have some doubts about LGBTQ issues, where more modern schools have no real issues.
Or to be more direct, I am a huge fan of those christians who actually bother to study and learn about the original faith. I sound bigoted against the modern CINO (Christian in Name Only) type who have no actual understanding of the bible, Jesus, their own history, or the writings of great christians like Aquinas, because they are just hiding their bigotry in what they think their belief says. They need an education.
Perhaps, as a religion teacher who sounds thoroughly condescending ("christians who actually bother to study and learn about the original faith") you should ponder this question: why is it that the only countries where same-sex marriage is legal are majority-Christian?
Why is it not legal anywhere else, including all the majority-Muslim, -Hindu, -Judaic, -Buddhist countries? Heck, I can't even think of an officially non-religious country where it's legal (not sure about Cuba).
Your attempt at some sort of implied equivalence ("as to other faiths, like christianity, it depends") is just bs.
One minor point, since you're a religion teacher: don't you tell your students that the names of these religions should be capitalized? (I find it curious -- no, telling -- that you capitalized the names of every religion except Christianity).
Another minor point. Go back and take another look at who placed "christians" in quotes. Hint: it was not the poster to whom I was responding (and, in turn, with whom you were agreeing).
I'd like to thank all of the bigots and backwoods denizens for so clearly identifying themselves in this thread. It's nice to be able to block so many morons so easily. I expect to have a much higher percentage of sane, reasonable posts to read in the future.
Perhaps, as a religion teacher who sounds thoroughly condescending ("christians who actually bother to study and learn about the original faith") you should ponder this question: why is it that the only countries where same-sex marriage is legal are majority-Christian?
Why is it not legal anywhere else, including all the majority-Muslim, -Hindu, -Judaic, -Buddhist countries? Heck, I can't even think of an officially non-religious country where it's legal (not sure about Cuba).
Your attempt at some sort of implied equivalence ("as to other faiths, like christianity, it depends") is just bs.
One minor point, since you're a religion teacher: don't you tell your students that the names of these religions should be capitalized? (I find it curious -- no, telling -- that you capitalized the names of every religion except Christianity).
Another minor point. Go back and take another look at who placed "christians" in quotes. Hint: it was not the poster to whom I was responding (and, in turn, with whom you were agreeing).
You have no idea how condensing I am over this. I teach world religion and ethics. When people talk about morality and gay marriage in religion even though they have literally no experience with ethics and never learned their faith tradition I am far more than condescending. And they deserve worse.
Imagine a "feminist" tells you they are a feminist but that they don't think women deserve rights. In fact they are sub human. Imagine a person who calls themselves a mathematician but has no grasp of calc, geometry, algebra or even addition. Imagine a "scientist" who thinks all knowledge is derived from asking a magic genie. These things are all on par with the depressingly large part of the American populace that calls themselves "christian" because they think gay people are icky and Jesus wants you to be wealthy. They are morons.
Same sex marriage is in fact legal in many other countries, the first, if i recall, was Denmark, a majority agnostic/atheist country.
I am not implying equivalence between faiths in attitude about LGBTQ rights except in so far as in all faiths there are branches that openly accept LGBTQ and branches that strongly condemn, and everything in between.
You may find the capitalization of anything telling, but you should tell it to the keyboard on my phone, which I assumed was automatically capitalizing words, and I frankly just didn't bother to check. If you think something that small is "telling" then I will be sure not answer posts on my phone while i garden.
Reading posts on the phone may also be the issue about who you are responding to and how I read them. But honestly, since "Christianity" got both lower and upper case treatment, in many posts, including yours, maybe you are making too much of it? Nah.....
You have no idea how condensing I am over this. I teach world religion and ethics. When people talk about morality and gay marriage in religion even though they have literally no experience with ethics and never learned their faith tradition I am far more than condescending. And they deserve worse.
Imagine a "feminist" tells you they are a feminist but that they don't think women deserve rights. In fact they are sub human. Imagine a person who calls themselves a mathematician but has no grasp of calc, geometry, algebra or even addition. Imagine a "scientist" who thinks all knowledge is derived from asking a magic genie. These things are all on par with the depressingly large part of the American populace that calls themselves "christian" because they think gay people are icky and Jesus wants you to be wealthy. They are morons.
Same sex marriage is in fact legal in many other countries, the first, if i recall, was Denmark, a majority agnostic/atheist country.
I am not implying equivalence between faiths in attitude about LGBTQ rights except in so far as in all faiths there are branches that openly accept LGBTQ and branches that strongly condemn, and everything in between.
You may find the capitalization of anything telling, but you should tell it to the keyboard on my phone, which I assumed was automatically capitalizing words, and I frankly just didn't bother to check. If you think something that small is "telling" then I will be sure not answer posts on my phone while i garden.
Reading posts on the phone may also be the issue about who you are responding to and how I read them. But honestly, since "Christianity" got both lower and upper case treatment, in many posts, including yours, maybe you are making too much of it? Nah.....
I have no idea what to make of your nonsensically stream-of-consciousness blather, but let me address just one: Christianity got a lower-case treatment in my posts only when I was quoting you or that other guy (OP).
It always gets an upper case treatment, as does a reference to any other major religion.
A 'condensing' teacher, indeed. Good luck with the topic.
I wouldn't put It in terms of searching for a mate but you do have point that there is more opportunity for different enthicities to live together in the cities. That is why in California we have China town, Korea Town, little Saigon. Santa Ana etc. Although Latinos share some ideals with Republicans such as Christianity and pro-life, and they may be either conservative or liberal they are generally anti-republican as Republicans are mostly viewed as pandering to the wealthy.
To expand on my previous post, I think other reasons for cities to be more liberal is that they are home to many top universities which historically are more liberal. Another factor is that creatives can more easily find employment in the cities in careers such as fashion, art, media, music and culinary and those people tend to be left leaning philisofically as well.
Finally, I feel that the welfare recipient demographic is somewhat irrelevant as they are generally not a very big turnout for elections although if they do vote, they are also generally anti-republican viewed as a rich white guy club.
Really? An extended analogy is too much for you? Well at least we know that being on the right side of history doesn't mean you are on the right side of the IQ gap. Maybe someone will dumb it down for you.
shen, don't bother with anant.
Whoa. Hold on there, with the broad brush. Apple has categorized no one a bigot or anything remotely similar.
You're welcome to conflate your consumption habits with the 'morality' of the country from whence the product comes, but you might be being a tad hypocritical here. Are you sure you've never consumed Saudi oil or Chinese-made (including Apple's, since they're all assembled there) products?
Btw, does that mean Facebook, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. should have 'better tricks up their sleeves' too? Or are you holding Apple to a different standard?
(Fixed a couple of typos).
Once again Anant vents his nitpicking negativity on this forum. And he's wrong about Apple not having categorized people as bigots.
Once again Anant vents his nitpicking negativity on this forum. And he's wrong about Apple not having categorized people as bigots.
Provide a (credible) link/cite, or move along. Better yet, get lost.
Really? An extended analogy is too much for you?
Gosh, no. Not at all.
Extended stream-of-consciousness, poorly thought-out pap (esp. from someone who claims to be a 'religion and ethics' guy), yes.
Rubbish! They collapsed because their politico-economic system was superseded by a better one. For example, the British Empire collapsed after WW2 not because it had suddenly become gay (homosexuality was still illegal and enforced then), but because the colonial economic system broke up.
The bottom line is that your constitution enshrines as a right the pursuit of happiness for all, and that's a great ideal so it's good to see the SC uphold it in this case.
Products are products. Without any discrimination everybody can use Apple products. I'm not interested in your politics your moral and your religion in this forum with focus on technology products.
The mission is very easy. Apple improves and enriches your life. It doesn't matter where you come from what you think and what you are doing.
As European and especially as German I appreciate the great American appleinsider for its high quality of product, enterprise and market knowledge.
I'm also not interested in Tim Cook's personal orientation. But what I'm interested in, is, what he is doing with Apple and all the inferior products that we all receive from Apple.
Leading Android fansite recommends Apple Inc iPad Air 2 as best tablet in holiday gift guide