The question everyone should be asking is, should a privately owned company use shareholders money to make a political statement.
Almost any civil rights issue can be defined as a political one in some respect, but it does't mean it's not a civil rights issue too. Apple has more of a right to make a claim on this CA state issue than UT mormons do. 100K is nothing compared to the billions corporations spend shareholder money on all the time. We just don't hear about it.
BTW, 3.8 billion a day?
Quote:
they want to be a 10%+ agenda and force their perversions out into the public realm
LAWL
Quote:
We often teach our children multiple views. Often they are categorized as RIGHT and WRONG.
There's also tolerance and intolerance. Wonder which side you fall on that one. Better join the sheltered mormons in UT, before the California gays get a chance to "force" their perversions on them. Oooh, scary.
That is one reason I support Prop 8. At some point legalized gay marriage will be forced on religious sects, and churches will be sued unless they perform gay marriages. That goes beyond tolerating this disgusting behavior. That infringes on my rights and my beliefs.
Why not legalize polygamy? That's a case where political parties have stopped a religion from the right to their beliefs.
Seems the political left is a little one sided to me.
Polygamy should be legal. No need for government interference. Gay marriage should be legal. It's nobody's business but theirs.
"Infringing on your beliefs"? Cross that bridge when you come to it. No one is forcing churches to perform any kind of ceremonies.
If Prop 8 passes, you'll no doubt claim that "God's will was done." With that in mind, if Prop 8 is defeated, will you admit that "God's will was done"? Or is "God's will" only done when he appears to agree with you?
You might recall that after Jesus prayed to the Father that he wouldn't have to go through with the scourging and crucifixion, he said, "yet not my will but yours be done." Jesus knew that the will of God the Father was what was important, even though he wanted very much to avoid the cross. But it was God's will that his son be sacrificed for all of mankind.
Likewise, whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails....God may stir the hearts of the voters to ban gay marriage, or he may stand back and let gay marriage become the law of the land, even though it's not what he wants. Either way, his will has been done. He maybe help us, or he may stand back with his arms crossed and not help us, because we've turned away from him as a country.
In the end, though, God does not rule by the laws of government. He rules in the hearts of humans, one at a time. My brother is gay, and only God can change him. A law isn't going to do it.
I will regretfully not be buying products from Apple for a year and perhaps longer.
I will also not be purchasing Apple stock.
Gay marriage is not just a civil rights issue it is also a moral issue. I object to my government blessing as acceptable what I view as immoral and against biological nature.
I have no objections to civil unions provided they are available to anyone who wants to establish a domestic partnership irregardless of sexual relations or not.
The thousands of dollars that I have spent on Apple products over the years won't make much of a difference but it will make me feel better and perhaps others will magnify the impact.
If Apple wants to vote with their dollars, I will vote with mine.
That's the beauty of the free market. Take your business elsewhere. Enjoy your Vista riddled PC.
Why do we discriminate against adults having consensual sex with children?
Why do we discriminate against polygamy?
Why do we discriminate against marrying a dog our a goat? (don't laugh, it's done in Hindu cultures)
Realize that discrimination is good in certain instances. What's being debated is whether something should be discriminated against or not.
Ask God if he discriminates. He does discriminate, because he knows what is good for us and what is not good for us. He created bounds and limits for us, and discriminates between what's in bounds and what's out of bounds in terms of behavior. He discriminates, and does it in love. Sometimes he says 'no', with love.
You are confusing 2 uses of the word "discrimination".
It literally means "to make a disctinction between".
That is what you describe God does: He makes a distinction between good and evil.
In the legal and moral context of this discussion discrimination has an extended meaning:
To make distinctions between individuals based on characteristics of any group that they belong to, and to treat them differently than others because of such characteristics.
In this context "discrimination" is when you don't treat someone like a person (like an equal) because they belong to a certain group.
Discrimination is considered immoral because it is the depersonalisation of individuals.
You are wrong when you assume that the constitution and people in general think it is OK to discriminate against murderers, child-molesters, gays or goat-marriers.
The opposite is true.
Under the constitution:
- Nobody has the right to take another's live, whether they are atheist or Christian.
- When someone is accused of murder, they are entitled to a fair trial, whether they are guilty or not, whether they are gay or straight.
- A child molester should receive their lawful sentence whether they are black or white.
- 2 consenting individuals have the right to a civil marriage, whether they are Christian or Hindu, gay or straight.
I think that you don't really understand the concept of discrimination, and that's why you can't recognize it in yourself.
A.) I don't care how many customers or employees this affects, Apple still has no business supporting social issues. It is a democratic vote by the people, and everyone else needs to shut their face. The PEOPLE will decide how they want to be governed. Majority rules in a democratic situation. Deal with it. In fact, I think it will hurt Apple more, as MORE people object to the idea overall. Homosexual marriage has historically been voted down time and time again, though single legislating judges feel it is their right to over rule the PEOPLE.
B.) MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! I challenge any one of you to find it in the Constitution. You will not/cannot find it. So therefore, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT protect MARRIAGE (homosexual or otherwise) for it's citizens.
Well, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that counts for something. And the government should have no say whatsoever in religious matters regarding marriage. In matters of contract law, we have plenty of precedence.
An animal is a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Being sentient means you able to perceive or feel things.
They are not exclusive of each other.
I agree, but since the government is involved and there is no need to involve any religion, unless one wishes, I see no reason why two same sex couples can't be married under law. The under God part is up to the churches, and I don't see them changing their stance anytime soon.
I think the real issue is that people can't separate the polyseme term of the related but distinct meaning of a marriage under God and a marriage by law. If it we called the legal union something different than marriage would this as big of an issue?
Perhaps there should be 2 distinct phases of "marriage". The Marriage Contract and the Marriage Ceremony.
You are confusing 2 uses of the word "discrimination".
...
I think that you don't really understand the concept of discrimination, and that's why you can't recognize it in yourself.
I'd like to introduce you to a fella named Bill Clinton. When being questioned about the Monica Lewinski scandal, he tried to make a few different definitions of the word 'is'.
I understand the word 'discrimination' -- to make a distinction between two things. Sometimes there is a value judgment based on that discrimination (right and wrong), and sometimes there is no value judgment based on that discrimination (orange or green.) You may disagree with my value judgment, but the point still stands -- discrimination is often good and necessary.
You might recall that after Jesus prayed to the Father that he wouldn't have to go through with the scourging and crucifixion, he said, "yet not my will but yours be done." Jesus knew that the will of God the Father was what was important, even though he wanted very much to avoid the cross. But it was God's will that his son be sacrificed for all of mankind.
Likewise, whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails....God may stir the hearts of the voters to ban gay marriage, or he may stand back and let gay marriage become the law of the land, even though it's not what he wants. Either way, his will has been done. He maybe help us, or he may stand back with his arms crossed and not help us, because we've turned away from him as a country.
In the end, though, God does not rule by the laws of government. He rules in the hearts of humans, one at a time. My brother is gay, and only God can change him. A law isn't going to do it.
And so I have you in my heart, when I think of these words:
"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."
- 2 consenting individuals have the constitutional right to marry, whether they are Christian or Hindu, gay or straight.
I happen to have a copy of the Constitution here at my house (have had it since I was a kid) and I have never seen anything in there (or it's amendments) referencing a right to marry. But then again the "separation of church and state" has never been in there either but most people seem to think it's in there somewhere... (The truth is Andrew Jackson referenced it in a paper he wrote but it was never an official stance of the US gov't and wasn't again seen from until a US justice referenced it in a court ruling but that doesn't make it a law). And don't give me the argument about the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - that's not the "separation of church and state." That simply says that the gov't will not require anyone to be a part of any one religion nor granting preference to any one religion over any other (or lack of religion).
As I mentioned above, many parents don't want their kids being taught about gay marriages in school (myself included). Whether you think that is right or wrong is irrelevant. It's my right to teach them the morals I believe in. You can do the same with your children, but schools do not (or at least should not) have that right.
So, it's ok for schools to teach what you agree with, but not other parents? What about the other parents who don't want schools to teach their kids that gay marriage is NOT ok? Aren't their rights just as valid as yours?
Quote:
Another big effect is religious. If gay marriages are recognized by the state, then any religion who refuses to marry gays will be subject to lawsuits and loss of tax exemption. Government cannot force a religion to change its values...well, it used to be that way.
Catholics do not allow divorce. Why isn't this a problem.
Comments
The question everyone should be asking is, should a privately owned company use shareholders money to make a political statement.
Almost any civil rights issue can be defined as a political one in some respect, but it does't mean it's not a civil rights issue too. Apple has more of a right to make a claim on this CA state issue than UT mormons do. 100K is nothing compared to the billions corporations spend shareholder money on all the time. We just don't hear about it.
BTW, 3.8 billion a day?
they want to be a 10%+ agenda and force their perversions out into the public realm
LAWL
We often teach our children multiple views. Often they are categorized as RIGHT and WRONG.
There's also tolerance and intolerance. Wonder which side you fall on that one. Better join the sheltered mormons in UT, before the California gays get a chance to "force" their perversions on them. Oooh, scary.
That is one reason I support Prop 8. At some point legalized gay marriage will be forced on religious sects, and churches will be sued unless they perform gay marriages. That goes beyond tolerating this disgusting behavior. That infringes on my rights and my beliefs.
Why not legalize polygamy? That's a case where political parties have stopped a religion from the right to their beliefs.
Seems the political left is a little one sided to me.
Polygamy should be legal. No need for government interference. Gay marriage should be legal. It's nobody's business but theirs.
"Infringing on your beliefs"? Cross that bridge when you come to it. No one is forcing churches to perform any kind of ceremonies.
If Prop 8 passes, you'll no doubt claim that "God's will was done." With that in mind, if Prop 8 is defeated, will you admit that "God's will was done"? Or is "God's will" only done when he appears to agree with you?
You might recall that after Jesus prayed to the Father that he wouldn't have to go through with the scourging and crucifixion, he said, "yet not my will but yours be done." Jesus knew that the will of God the Father was what was important, even though he wanted very much to avoid the cross. But it was God's will that his son be sacrificed for all of mankind.
Likewise, whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails....God may stir the hearts of the voters to ban gay marriage, or he may stand back and let gay marriage become the law of the land, even though it's not what he wants. Either way, his will has been done. He maybe help us, or he may stand back with his arms crossed and not help us, because we've turned away from him as a country.
In the end, though, God does not rule by the laws of government. He rules in the hearts of humans, one at a time. My brother is gay, and only God can change him. A law isn't going to do it.
Want proof? All societies of the past have been destroyed solely due to the lowering of the mores of that society. Every single one.
You're making things up to support your dislike of gays. Just admit you don't like gay people and don't hide behind specious arguments.
I will regretfully not be buying products from Apple for a year and perhaps longer.
I will also not be purchasing Apple stock.
Gay marriage is not just a civil rights issue it is also a moral issue. I object to my government blessing as acceptable what I view as immoral and against biological nature.
I have no objections to civil unions provided they are available to anyone who wants to establish a domestic partnership irregardless of sexual relations or not.
The thousands of dollars that I have spent on Apple products over the years won't make much of a difference but it will make me feel better and perhaps others will magnify the impact.
If Apple wants to vote with their dollars, I will vote with mine.
That's the beauty of the free market. Take your business elsewhere. Enjoy your Vista riddled PC.
There's also tolerance and intolerance. Wonder which side you fall on that one.
Intolerance is not always bad. We should be intolerant of what is wrong.
Prop 8 offend me in a worst way, I'm hetero and not a USA citizen.
If this prop ever get passed, the american spirit will be a little more dead.
Good for you. This does not affect you, so why are you commenting?
Why do we discriminate against adults having consensual sex with children?
Why do we discriminate against polygamy?
Why do we discriminate against marrying a dog our a goat? (don't laugh, it's done in Hindu cultures)
Realize that discrimination is good in certain instances. What's being debated is whether something should be discriminated against or not.
Ask God if he discriminates. He does discriminate, because he knows what is good for us and what is not good for us. He created bounds and limits for us, and discriminates between what's in bounds and what's out of bounds in terms of behavior. He discriminates, and does it in love. Sometimes he says 'no', with love.
You are confusing 2 uses of the word "discrimination".
It literally means "to make a disctinction between".
That is what you describe God does: He makes a distinction between good and evil.
In the legal and moral context of this discussion discrimination has an extended meaning:
To make distinctions between individuals based on characteristics of any group that they belong to, and to treat them differently than others because of such characteristics.
In this context "discrimination" is when you don't treat someone like a person (like an equal) because they belong to a certain group.
Discrimination is considered immoral because it is the depersonalisation of individuals.
You are wrong when you assume that the constitution and people in general think it is OK to discriminate against murderers, child-molesters, gays or goat-marriers.
The opposite is true.
Under the constitution:
- Nobody has the right to take another's live, whether they are atheist or Christian.
- When someone is accused of murder, they are entitled to a fair trial, whether they are guilty or not, whether they are gay or straight.
- A child molester should receive their lawful sentence whether they are black or white.
- 2 consenting individuals have the right to a civil marriage, whether they are Christian or Hindu, gay or straight.
I think that you don't really understand the concept of discrimination, and that's why you can't recognize it in yourself.
A.) I don't care how many customers or employees this affects, Apple still has no business supporting social issues. It is a democratic vote by the people, and everyone else needs to shut their face. The PEOPLE will decide how they want to be governed. Majority rules in a democratic situation. Deal with it. In fact, I think it will hurt Apple more, as MORE people object to the idea overall. Homosexual marriage has historically been voted down time and time again, though single legislating judges feel it is their right to over rule the PEOPLE.
B.) MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! I challenge any one of you to find it in the Constitution. You will not/cannot find it. So therefore, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT protect MARRIAGE (homosexual or otherwise) for it's citizens.
Well, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that counts for something. And the government should have no say whatsoever in religious matters regarding marriage. In matters of contract law, we have plenty of precedence.
Wow this really sucks for Apple.
Can't believe they would back such a morally reprehensible act.
Now we know Steve doesn't have cancer, he most likely has AIDS.
Die. Steve. Die.
Nice. I never knew there were so many intolerant shmucks on AI. I wonder... are they pro-Palin plants?
An animal is a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Being sentient means you able to perceive or feel things.
They are not exclusive of each other.
I agree, but since the government is involved and there is no need to involve any religion, unless one wishes, I see no reason why two same sex couples can't be married under law. The under God part is up to the churches, and I don't see them changing their stance anytime soon.
I think the real issue is that people can't separate the polyseme term of the related but distinct meaning of a marriage under God and a marriage by law. If it we called the legal union something different than marriage would this as big of an issue?
Perhaps there should be 2 distinct phases of "marriage". The Marriage Contract and the Marriage Ceremony.
You are confusing 2 uses of the word "discrimination".
...
I think that you don't really understand the concept of discrimination, and that's why you can't recognize it in yourself.
I'd like to introduce you to a fella named Bill Clinton. When being questioned about the Monica Lewinski scandal, he tried to make a few different definitions of the word 'is'.
I understand the word 'discrimination' -- to make a distinction between two things. Sometimes there is a value judgment based on that discrimination (right and wrong), and sometimes there is no value judgment based on that discrimination (orange or green.) You may disagree with my value judgment, but the point still stands -- discrimination is often good and necessary.
Intolerance is not always bad. We should be intolerant of what is wrong.
Since your god doesn't get to speak for everybody, right and wrong becomes all the more subjective.
You might recall that after Jesus prayed to the Father that he wouldn't have to go through with the scourging and crucifixion, he said, "yet not my will but yours be done." Jesus knew that the will of God the Father was what was important, even though he wanted very much to avoid the cross. But it was God's will that his son be sacrificed for all of mankind.
Likewise, whether or not Prop 8 passes or fails....God may stir the hearts of the voters to ban gay marriage, or he may stand back and let gay marriage become the law of the land, even though it's not what he wants. Either way, his will has been done. He maybe help us, or he may stand back with his arms crossed and not help us, because we've turned away from him as a country.
In the end, though, God does not rule by the laws of government. He rules in the hearts of humans, one at a time. My brother is gay, and only God can change him. A law isn't going to do it.
And so I have you in my heart, when I think of these words:
"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."
- 2 consenting individuals have the constitutional right to marry, whether they are Christian or Hindu, gay or straight.
I happen to have a copy of the Constitution here at my house (have had it since I was a kid) and I have never seen anything in there (or it's amendments) referencing a right to marry. But then again the "separation of church and state" has never been in there either but most people seem to think it's in there somewhere... (The truth is Andrew Jackson referenced it in a paper he wrote but it was never an official stance of the US gov't and wasn't again seen from until a US justice referenced it in a court ruling but that doesn't make it a law). And don't give me the argument about the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - that's not the "separation of church and state." That simply says that the gov't will not require anyone to be a part of any one religion nor granting preference to any one religion over any other (or lack of religion).
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pay closer attention next time.
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, so arownious' assertion still stands.
As I mentioned above, many parents don't want their kids being taught about gay marriages in school (myself included). Whether you think that is right or wrong is irrelevant. It's my right to teach them the morals I believe in. You can do the same with your children, but schools do not (or at least should not) have that right.
So, it's ok for schools to teach what you agree with, but not other parents? What about the other parents who don't want schools to teach their kids that gay marriage is NOT ok? Aren't their rights just as valid as yours?
Another big effect is religious. If gay marriages are recognized by the state, then any religion who refuses to marry gays will be subject to lawsuits and loss of tax exemption. Government cannot force a religion to change its values...well, it used to be that way.
Catholics do not allow divorce. Why isn't this a problem.
Umm, that's not the Constitution - that's the Declaration of Independence...
At least Britney could figure out the natural order of things....that a male and a female go together...
Is it the natural order of things to marry at all? Marriage is a man-made institution. Labeling something as "natural" or not is irrelevant.
Since your god doesn't get to speak for everybody, right and wrong becomes all the more subjective.
I'm not talking about my own personal god, I'm talking about the God -- the one and only.
You're right, though. Without him, all right and wrong is subjective. Everything goes.
If right and wrong is truly subjective, people's blood pressure need not rise when someone declares their pet sins to be wrong.