Who is scared of loving someone of the opposite sex? The whole same sex debate is a disgrace and is never about love, but the problem with this Apple campaign is about a company as big as apple wasting its money on societal issues that it has nothing to do with!
Apple has lost so much in the last 7 years. It puts resources into the above campaign that panders to a minute minority of the population, and neglects what people really want from their devices. For goodness sakes companies are still selling late 2015 MacBook Pro's, that in in itself should tell them that they are doing something wrong, and don't get me started on the idiocy of removing the headphone socket, or the deficiencies of Siri.
Stick to making and marketing products that people want, and stay out of social engineering!
WOW. Cook is really shoving this stuff down people’s throats.
Apple is about products and services. Not about Cooks preferred lifestyle. Stop using the company as a personal preference platform.
You know what? Since I was a kid I’ve had heterosexuality “shoved down my throat” from school, friends, churches, politicians, friends’ parents, comics, films, theatre, books, TV, magazines, family, mortgage providers, holiday brochures, tech companies and car manufacturers.
Imagine being told your whole life that someone else’s way to live should be yours. Not only told that it should, but enforced by law too.
Imagine that there are alternative ways to be human.
mattinoz said: Our recent Postal Plebiscite was indeed a chance for those against the change to our laws to put forward their science based and good-old common sense positions.
They choose not to.
I don't know how it worked there, I was talking more about USA/Canada. The arguments are pretty simple though, so I'm surprised no-one tried (if true).
re: science - there is no science I'm aware of to support the 'born that way' thesis. And, while the science is hardly conclusive in either direction, the few studies that have been done correctly and might shed some meaningful light on the subject matter support non-genetic, nurture based explanations.
That doesn't mean how we handle each situation is easy, nor that experientially, it doesn't seem like 'born that way' is how they feel. But, trying to use science to back up the idea that people just are, can't change, etc. is simply not factual.
re: laws - Government can basically do 1 of 3 things: Prohibit, permit, or promote.
I agree with the change from prohibit to permit, as we're not a theocracy, and I don't think the government should be poking around into our private lives and lifestyles if we're not doing obvious damage to others or society.
However, the jump from permitting something to promoting it, is a big leap. The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting everyone's particular lifestyle choices. The government has interest in marriage, because it produces the next generation and stabilizes society (mostly due to child-raising impact).
Once the government declares one thing equivalent to another, and begins to lend it's support and legal-arm to push that change, it is going to have an impact, especially if the two things aren't actually equivalent. This isn't just about a particular couple, but the impact, overall, on society. Same-sex couples don't produce the next generation, and the credible studies (or census data from Canada) show best outcomes for children from heterosexual, committed couples. Hence what the world has called 'traditional marriage' for the last how many centuries. This equivalence impacts all sorts of things related to family and children, including adoption, parental rights, etc.
What seems like a small, rather insignificant change (in terms of societal impact) really isn't.
Also, where does it now end? A male/female couple is the natural family unit in any common sense manner. That doesn't mean other situations can't be made to work, but we should be promoting the optimal, not merely something that can be made to work. Might a bi person want two partners? One could make a good argument in terms of resources for 2 or 3 couples (or something similar) marrying. What about polygamy/polyandry? Or, if the definition is 'who (what?) you love' then why limit it to humans? If we're wanting true marriage equality (by the current definition of that term) you'd have to be open to all these things. What additional impacts would those have?
To make a few people happy and feel better about themselves, we've launched a huge cultural experiment of which we really don't know the outcome (though there is historical data and a bit of current data that give us a few clues). Is this the worst thing that can happen to society? No, not at all. No-fault divorce actually did far more damage already (the effects of which we're starting to see). But, we should be making corrective fixes to stabilize family, not seeing how far we can push the experiment.
foggyhill said: So, WTF is the equivalence huh buddy. GTFO with your nonsense.
You know those millions of Syrian refugees (for a start)? How many died in Libya? I might be a conservative, but I'm not a NeoCon war-monger. I'm kind of surprised you are. But, kind of OT, as Trump really has nothing to do with this thread.
kiltedgreen said: You know what? Since I was a kid I’ve had heterosexuality “shoved down my throat” from school, friends, churches, politicians, friends’ parents, comics, films, theatre, books, TV, magazines, family, mortgage providers, holiday brochures, tech companies and car manufacturers.
Imagine being told your whole life that someone else’s way to live should be yours. Not only told that it should, but enforced by law too.
Imagine that there are alternative ways to be human.
This doesn't just apply to you though, it applies to millions of various cultural decisions and lifestyle choices we might make. The key is to determining societal impact, not just saying, 'promote my way too' and hoping for the best. And, are you old enough that your chosen lifestyle was banned by law?
Anything that is normal or mainstream could be said to be 'shoved down everyone's throat.' You have to make arguments for why one thing or another should be permitted or promoted within society. I bet I could list a number of more fringe social behaviors that you also wouldn't accept, and that person might complain that the opposite has been 'shoved down their throat.' That doesn't necessarily mean giving them the go-ahead because there are 'alternative ways to be human' would be a good thing.
Who is scared of loving someone of the opposite sex? The whole same sex debate is a disgrace and is never about love, but the problem with this Apple campaign is about a company as big as apple wasting its money on societal issues that it has nothing to do with!
Apple has lost so much in the last 7 years. It puts resources into the above campaign that panders to a minute minority of the population, and neglects what people really want from their devices. For goodness sakes companies are still selling late 2015 MacBook Pro's, that in in itself should tell them that they are doing something wrong, and don't get me started on the idiocy of removing the headphone socket, or the deficiencies of Siri.
Stick to making and marketing products that people want, and stay out of social engineering!
Meanwhile, despite your whining, they're more successful than they've ever been.
That "minute minority" is much, much larger than you apparently understand — and doesn't just include people directly within the LGBTQ community, but also their allies, supporters, friends, and family. I am proud to be one of those people. I feel sorry for people like you who think their way of life is threatened by the newfound freedoms of others who previously were, and still are, *actually* threatened.
You have absolutely no comprehension of what words mean. Learn English before using it.
All-Purpose Guru said: If a large quantity of people objected to these views I find it hard to believe they'd still be the largest and most successful company on the planet.
No. Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction. The cultured man has the obligation to be intolerant. Tolerance is easy. Any coward can learn to tolerate something. Tolerance is inaction; intolerance is action.
If it was a man and a woman getting married in the ad would you consider them shoving heterosexual marriage down our throats?
If every television show displayed the sky as green, would you be able to say there was an agenda? Did you seriously just tell someone to “watch television”? Incomprehensible.
Just a reminder: you don't have to like anything - but you don't get to force other people what they should and shouldn't like either.
Practice what you preach, then.
...these laws were changed for a reason. There is no silent majority, there is no hidden agenda.
Oh, so they weren’t changed for a reason? Despite us having hard physical proof of said reason? That’s interesting…
The overwhelming majority of people support marriage equality.
A proven false statement. Every single vote (meaning democratic, not even republican-style) failed. It was 4 people out of 300,000,000 who said what is “legal.”
An anecdotal survey of your circle of friends is not a representation of society as a whole.
mattinoz said: Our recent Postal Plebiscite was indeed a chance for those against the change to our laws to put forward their science based and good-old common sense positions.
They choose not to.
I don't know how it worked there, I was talking more about USA/Canada. The arguments are pretty simple though, so I'm surprised no-one tried (if true).
re: science - there is no science I'm aware of to support the 'born that way' thesis. And, while the science is hardly conclusive in either direction, the few studies that have been done correctly and might shed some meaningful light on the subject matter support non-genetic, nurture based explanations.
That doesn't mean how we handle each situation is easy, nor that experientially, it doesn't seem like 'born that way' is how they feel. But, trying to use science to back up the idea that people just are, can't change, etc. is simply not factual.
re: laws - Government can basically do 1 of 3 things: Prohibit, permit, or promote.
I agree with the change from prohibit to permit, as we're not a theocracy, and I don't think the government should be poking around into our private lives and lifestyles if we're not doing obvious damage to others or society.
However, the jump from permitting something to promoting it, is a big leap. The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting everyone's particular lifestyle choices. The government has interest in marriage, because it produces the next generation and stabilizes society (mostly due to child-raising impact).
Once the government declares one thing equivalent to another, and begins to lend it's support and legal-arm to push that change, it is going to have an impact, especially if the two things aren't actually equivalent. This isn't just about a particular couple, but the impact, overall, on society. Same-sex couples don't produce the next generation, and the credible studies (or census data from Canada) show best outcomes for children from heterosexual, committed couples. Hence what the world has called 'traditional marriage' for the last how many centuries. This equivalence impacts all sorts of things related to family and children, including adoption, parental rights, etc.
What seems like a small, rather insignificant change (in terms of societal impact) really isn't.
Also, where does it now end? A male/female couple is the natural family unit in any common sense manner. That doesn't mean other situations can't be made to work, but we should be promoting the optimal, not merely something that can be made to work. Might a bi person want two partners? One could make a good argument in terms of resources for 2 or 3 couples (or something similar) marrying. What about polygamy/polyandry? Or, if the definition is 'who (what?) you love' then why limit it to humans? If we're wanting true marriage equality (by the current definition of that term) you'd have to be open to all these things. What additional impacts would those have?
To make a few people happy and feel better about themselves, we've launched a huge cultural experiment of which we really don't know the outcome (though there is historical data and a bit of current data that give us a few clues). Is this the worst thing that can happen to society? No, not at all. No-fault divorce actually did far more damage already (the effects of which we're starting to see). But, we should be making corrective fixes to stabilize family, not seeing how far we can push the experiment.
foggyhill said: So, WTF is the equivalence huh buddy. GTFO with your nonsense.
You know those millions of Syrian refugees (for a start)? How many died in Libya? I might be a conservative, but I'm not a NeoCon war-monger. I'm kind of surprised you are. But, kind of OT, as Trump really has nothing to do with this thread.
kiltedgreen said: You know what? Since I was a kid I’ve had heterosexuality “shoved down my throat” from school, friends, churches, politicians, friends’ parents, comics, films, theatre, books, TV, magazines, family, mortgage providers, holiday brochures, tech companies and car manufacturers.
Imagine being told your whole life that someone else’s way to live should be yours. Not only told that it should, but enforced by law too.
Imagine that there are alternative ways to be human.
This doesn't just apply to you though, it applies to millions of various cultural decisions and lifestyle choices we might make. The key is to determining societal impact, not just saying, 'promote my way too' and hoping for the best. And, are you old enough that your chosen lifestyle was banned by law?
Anything that is normal or mainstream could be said to be 'shoved down everyone's throat.' You have to make arguments for why one thing or another should be permitted or promoted within society. I bet I could list a number of more fringe social behaviors that you also wouldn't accept, and that person might complain that the opposite has been 'shoved down their throat.' That doesn't necessarily mean giving them the go-ahead because there are 'alternative ways to be human' would be a good thing.
There is no evidence to support your assertion that children do worse when raised by gay couples — there is plenty of data to suggest quite the opposite is true. The only negative that I can see, from *your* perspective, is that they might be raised to be more open minded and accepting of different lifestyles. Also, your opinion on same-sex adoption is in the minority — most people support gay adoption in the US. Deal with it.
Sorry you feel you need to make up "data" supporting your reasoning for why these ads offend you, but you're wrong.
fastasleep said: I feel sorry for people like you who think their way of life is threatened by the newfound freedoms of others who previously were, and still are, *actually* threatened.
It's all a matter of word-play, huh? If we licensed toddlers to drive, would you be rejoicing their newfound freedoms? What new freedoms are you talking about? The State promoting a behavior is more than a freedom. I know LGBT people who married before it was State-sanctioned. I think you're a bit confused on what a freedom is.
Also, it doesn't threaten me directly, aside from my own freedoms of speech and thought being threatened by the activists. However, being a student of culture, society, history, etc. I can tell you that it isn't going to turn out well. So, in that sense, yes I'm threatened. I'd rather not see the 'West' collapse if it could be avoided. It is going to create a lot of misery and suffering, or worse.
(And, I mean directly... we're all harmed and threatened as the culture degrades around us, which I'd call more indirect. Just ask some of the parents of kids killed in the recent school shooting, or someone who has been robbed or beat-up, etc.)
But, morality aside, this debate can also be argued based on science and good-ol common sense. It just never has been.
It has. I just get my posts deleted when I do that.
Oh yea, that seems to be the natural totalitarian tendency of the left in action... but I meant more in terms of the legal changes in the USA/Canada, etc. The debate wasn't really ever had.
fastasleep said: There is no evidence to support your assertion that children do worse when raised by gay couples — there is plenty of data to suggest quite the opposite is true. The only negative that I can see, from *your* perspective, is that they might be raised to be more open minded and accepting of different lifestyles. Also, your opinion on same-sex adoption is in the minority — most people support gay adoption in the US. Deal with it.
Sorry you feel you need to make up "data" supporting your reasoning for why these ads offend you, but you're wrong.
No, there isn't enough data (yet) to provide meaningful statistics between gay-couple parenting vs other forms of parenting that aren't a male/female long-term committed couple. The latter has been proven superior in real studies as well as simple observation of census data here in Canada. It's the 'no difference' thesis that was based on flawed studies where they cherry-picked the same-sex couples to study.
Also, it doesn't really matter if my opinion is in the minority or majority. What matters is who is correct. The majority of people believe all kinds of stupid stuff.
Loren Marks of Louisiana State University reviews the 59 studies that are referenced in the 2005 American Psychological Association brief that came to the conclusion that there are “no differences.” Marks concludes that “not one of the 59 studies referenced … compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way.”
Also, I get the difference between a logical slippery slope and the slippery slope fallacy. This is the former. The exact same line of argumentation used for same-sex-marriage can be applied to all sorts of other situations. That's a logical slippery slope, not a fallacy.
Who is scared of loving someone of the opposite sex? The whole same sex debate is a disgrace and is never about love, but the problem with this Apple campaign is about a company as big as apple wasting its money on societal issues that it has nothing to do with!
Apple has lost so much in the last 7 years. It puts resources into the above campaign that panders to a minute minority of the population, and neglects what people really want from their devices. For goodness sakes companies are still selling late 2015 MacBook Pro's, that in in itself should tell them that they are doing something wrong, and don't get me started on the idiocy of removing the headphone socket, or the deficiencies of Siri.
Stick to making and marketing products that people want, and stay out of social engineering!
I don't like looking at tattoos so I just look the other way, that is a lifestyle choice which some people make. Being attracted to and marrying a person of the same gender is not a lifestyle thing, it's biological.
spice-boy said: I don't like looking at tattoos so I just look the other way, that is a lifestyle choice which some people make. Being attracted to and marrying a person of the same gender is not a lifestyle thing, it's biological.
If it were biological, then there should be some evidence of that. Maybe we just haven't discovered it yet, but the studies that have tried have actually concluded against this thesis (i.e.: identical twins).
I have no interest in discussing this topic with you — I've read more than enough of your hateful vitriol on this subject here already.
Continue being wrong, then. It’s no skin off my back.
The lengthy dissertation you PMed me seems to imply otherwise, but whatever — I'll be over here living life and having fun with my wonderful LGBTQ friends and not giving a shit about people upset over people dancing in a commercial.
Comments
Stick to making and marketing products that people want, and stay out of social engineering!
Imagine being told your whole life that someone else’s way to live should be yours. Not only told that it should, but enforced by law too.
Imagine that there are alternative ways to be human.
re: science - there is no science I'm aware of to support the 'born that way' thesis. And, while the science is hardly conclusive in either direction, the few studies that have been done correctly and might shed some meaningful light on the subject matter support non-genetic, nurture based explanations.
That doesn't mean how we handle each situation is easy, nor that experientially, it doesn't seem like 'born that way' is how they feel. But, trying to use science to back up the idea that people just are, can't change, etc. is simply not factual.
re: laws - Government can basically do 1 of 3 things: Prohibit, permit, or promote.
I agree with the change from prohibit to permit, as we're not a theocracy, and I don't think the government should be poking around into our private lives and lifestyles if we're not doing obvious damage to others or society.
However, the jump from permitting something to promoting it, is a big leap. The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting everyone's particular lifestyle choices. The government has interest in marriage, because it produces the next generation and stabilizes society (mostly due to child-raising impact).
Once the government declares one thing equivalent to another, and begins to lend it's support and legal-arm to push that change, it is going to have an impact, especially if the two things aren't actually equivalent. This isn't just about a particular couple, but the impact, overall, on society. Same-sex couples don't produce the next generation, and the credible studies (or census data from Canada) show best outcomes for children from heterosexual, committed couples. Hence what the world has called 'traditional marriage' for the last how many centuries. This equivalence impacts all sorts of things related to family and children, including adoption, parental rights, etc.
What seems like a small, rather insignificant change (in terms of societal impact) really isn't.
Also, where does it now end? A male/female couple is the natural family unit in any common sense manner. That doesn't mean other situations can't be made to work, but we should be promoting the optimal, not merely something that can be made to work. Might a bi person want two partners? One could make a good argument in terms of resources for 2 or 3 couples (or something similar) marrying. What about polygamy/polyandry? Or, if the definition is 'who (what?) you love' then why limit it to humans? If we're wanting true marriage equality (by the current definition of that term) you'd have to be open to all these things. What additional impacts would those have?
To make a few people happy and feel better about themselves, we've launched a huge cultural experiment of which we really don't know the outcome (though there is historical data and a bit of current data that give us a few clues). Is this the worst thing that can happen to society? No, not at all. No-fault divorce actually did far more damage already (the effects of which we're starting to see). But, we should be making corrective fixes to stabilize family, not seeing how far we can push the experiment.
You know those millions of Syrian refugees (for a start)? How many died in Libya? I might be a conservative, but I'm not a NeoCon war-monger. I'm kind of surprised you are. But, kind of OT, as Trump really has nothing to do with this thread.
Anything that is normal or mainstream could be said to be 'shoved down everyone's throat.' You have to make arguments for why one thing or another should be permitted or promoted within society. I bet I could list a number of more fringe social behaviors that you also wouldn't accept, and that person might complain that the opposite has been 'shoved down their throat.' That doesn't necessarily mean giving them the go-ahead because there are 'alternative ways to be human' would be a good thing.
That "minute minority" is much, much larger than you apparently understand — and doesn't just include people directly within the LGBTQ community, but also their allies, supporters, friends, and family. I am proud to be one of those people. I feel sorry for people like you who think their way of life is threatened by the newfound freedoms of others who previously were, and still are, *actually* threatened.
You have absolutely no comprehension of what words mean. Learn English before using it.
Great use of fallacies.
No. Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction. The cultured man has the obligation to be intolerant. Tolerance is easy. Any coward can learn to tolerate something. Tolerance is inaction; intolerance is action.
If every television show displayed the sky as green, would you be able to say there was an agenda? Did you seriously just tell someone to “watch television”? Incomprehensible.
Practice what you preach, then.
Oh, so they weren’t changed for a reason? Despite us having hard physical proof of said reason? That’s interesting…
A proven false statement. Every single vote (meaning democratic, not even republican-style) failed. It was 4 people out of 300,000,000 who said what is “legal.”
How ironic.
Explain what “society” is. This should be funny.
It has. I just get my posts deleted when I do that.
Learn what words mean before you use them.
No, the natural state of being was not forced on you. You simply chose to reject it.
Not for more than a single generation. So you’d consider yourself an egalitarian, then?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
There is no evidence to support your assertion that children do worse when raised by gay couples — there is plenty of data to suggest quite the opposite is true. The only negative that I can see, from *your* perspective, is that they might be raised to be more open minded and accepting of different lifestyles. Also, your opinion on same-sex adoption is in the minority — most people support gay adoption in the US. Deal with it.
Sorry you feel you need to make up "data" supporting your reasoning for why these ads offend you, but you're wrong.
Also, it doesn't threaten me directly, aside from my own freedoms of speech and thought being threatened by the activists. However, being a student of culture, society, history, etc. I can tell you that it isn't going to turn out well. So, in that sense, yes I'm threatened. I'd rather not see the 'West' collapse if it could be avoided. It is going to create a lot of misery and suffering, or worse.
(And, I mean directly... we're all harmed and threatened as the culture degrades around us, which I'd call more indirect. Just ask some of the parents of kids killed in the recent school shooting, or someone who has been robbed or beat-up, etc.)
Oh yea, that seems to be the natural totalitarian tendency of the left in action... but I meant more in terms of the legal changes in the USA/Canada, etc. The debate wasn't really ever had.
No, there isn't enough data (yet) to provide meaningful statistics between gay-couple parenting vs other forms of parenting that aren't a male/female long-term committed couple. The latter has been proven superior in real studies as well as simple observation of census data here in Canada. It's the 'no difference' thesis that was based on flawed studies where they cherry-picked the same-sex couples to study.
Also, it doesn't really matter if my opinion is in the minority or majority. What matters is who is correct. The majority of people believe all kinds of stupid stuff.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/10/10996/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/
Loren Marks of Louisiana State University reviews the 59 studies that are referenced in the 2005 American Psychological Association brief that came to the conclusion that there are “no differences.” Marks concludes that “not one of the 59 studies referenced … compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way.”
Also, I get the difference between a logical slippery slope and the slippery slope fallacy. This is the former. The exact same line of argumentation used for same-sex-marriage can be applied to all sorts of other situations. That's a logical slippery slope, not a fallacy.