This is not a political issue. It is one of human rights. Americans like to say they stand up for human rights around the world and yet when it comes to gay rights in their own country (or even rights for African Americans, for that matter), so many of them would deny two loving people from making a life-long commitment to each other. Yet, people like Brittany Spears can get married on a whim. Pure hypocrisy.
At least Britney could figure out the natural order of things....that a male and a female go together...
Here in Arizona, we have a constitutional amendment on the ballot that simply defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. It will pass, and I will vote for it. I hope it also passes in California.
Speaking of sheer stupidity, anyone who can't see that 'Tab A' was designed to go into 'Slot B'.......well.......
A lot of guys like 'Slot C' if their girlfriend/wife doesn't mind. So what has that got to do with it. Besides, now much of your total life with a spouse is spent having sex as opposed to everything else. It's mostly about the everything else. Live and let live.
WTF is gay marriage? i mean if you wanna be with someone of your same sex for the rest of your live so be it, but why would they even want to get marry on top of that. Apple please stop flushing shareholders money down the toilet and let People do what ever the heck they wanna do as long as it doesn't affect the company
A little self contradictory there, fraklinc. Gay marriage is ... well... marriage. No different than mom and pops, really. Why anyone would prevent anyone to marry the one they love is completely beyond me. Why people feel the need to get married in the first place is also a little beyond me. I see it as a legal issue and in that respect I guess there is a point, but these days many courts recognize common law marriage so it all seems a little pointless. But as you say - each to his or her own. I assume that what you really disapprove of is marriage, not GAY marriage as you give the impression of doing. I understand that what you REALLY disapprove of is that Apple raised its voice, but to deny some people the right to get married and not others is as wrong as it is arrogant so I applaud Apple for taking a stand. Its not controversial - its just common sense and if there is anything we need more of in this world it is exactly that.
You clearly are not familiar with what is going on in Massachusetts. Kindergarteners get a book about it. If it is legal, then teacher can legally teach about it. But, I must agree with the above post that this isn't really the place to debate the issue itself. I'll stop.
But I don't think corporations should get involved.
In reality, California gays and lesbians have been able to marry since 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom arranged for ceremonies at City Hall, which led to a landmark state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
There was a brief period where we could get married (but only in SF), then it got taken away and those who were married had their marriage licenses voided.
Apple has a very high percentage of LGBT employees. Good for Apple and standing up for their employees.
. . . there goes that big laptop contract at BYU! ;-)
Now that's funny!
But seriously, Apple's decision has made me a very proud stockholder indeed. I agree with their position that this is not a political issue, but a civil rights issue.
The guy who said the government has no business being involved in marriage is totally right. But as long as they are involved, then they've got to treat everyone the same. That's what freedom is all about: the freedom for you to hold an unpopular opinion and still be treated the same as those with popular opinions.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.
I don't know what Kool Aid you've been drinking, but the opposition to Prop 8 is outspending the "religious groups" 7 to 1 in advertising this week alone. Additionally, Superintendent O'Connell's statement that California schools are not "required" to teach on marriage sidesteps the real truth that the state's schools ARE teaching that gay marriage is normal and proper. In fact, last week a Bay area kindergarten class was taken by their teachers to attend a gay wedding. Moreover, school administrators are making it clear that parental objection means nothing to them.
Whether or not gay marriage is acceptable, such deception on the part of officials is not. And neither is AppleInsider's fawning reportage on an issue it knows to be two-sided. Sheesh, did Keith Olberman write this piece?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple's $100,000 contribution to the No on 8 campaign is significant because the effort to stop the proposition has been systematically outgunned by out-of-state religious groups, who have poured cash into TV advertisements that threaten dire consequences if gays' right to marry continue in the state. Among other claims, the ads state that if the proposition isn't passed, California schools will force children to study gay marriage.
That claim prompted California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell to announce that the proposition "has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful."
In reality, California gays and lesbians have been able to marry since 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom arranged for ceremonies at City Hall, which led to a landmark state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. None of the claims pushed by Prop 8 supporters have occurred over the last four years.
Here in Denmark Gay marriges have been legal for decades.
Why you (The States) haven´t come out of the middle ages yet regarding this issue I can´t understand???
THEREFORE I SAY GOOOOOO APPLE!!!!!!
Many children have had good upbringings and competent parenting from loving parents here, wether it was mom and mom or dad and dad parenting! IT´S ALL ABOUT THE LOVE!!! ...Not restrictions. No one can and should decide whom a person loves but the individual himself/herself!
Apple has gone "green". You don´t think that´s political!? Why is this so different? In the board room they have disgussed this and they also know that this will ensure them many new customers from generations to come. This is pleasing the youth... which is Apple´s future. So why not do the right thing AND win over a larger customer base?!
And with that argument, if you're broke, you should just throw your beliefs aside and go rob a bank.
I think more US companies should stand up for the human rights that is proudly claimed to be so superior by Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freethinker
The question here is whether a company should use its money, in a time of uncertainty to champion moral or ethical or whatever you classify gay marriage as an issue.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.
Look up reductio ad absurda if you can understand what it means
Both companies have a history of remaining politically neutral
And so they should have remained, just because both companies give equal rights to their employees, which indeed they should, does not mean that they should be making political statements that try to define the definition of marriage. A Union that was and always should be defined as being between a man and a woman.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti gay. I have a cousin who has compulsions and tendencies that way. He is an amazing person. A wonderful human being. He has every right to be accepted for what he chooses. But to me, he, as a person, and his choice of lifestyle are separate matters. I love him for who he is, but I can not endorse his chosen behavior. A behavior that seems to have been hijacked by a minority. Lets face it, if you have a natural tendency to alcoholism your loved and helped out. same for any other compulsion that can beset mankind, but mention same sex attraction as something different, as something that you just are and can't fight, and your shouted down by this minority. I know from first hand evidence what its like for people to fight same sex attraction feelings and I know there are plenty who do fight and who do win.
I know I'm going to get flamed for these statements, but so be it. However let it be known that I respect everyone and everyone's right to an opinion. I will not attack or ridicule anyone for their choices, everyone is a brother or sister, but as a matter of principle I cannot lay silent when people, or companies, support the redefinition of marriage and family.
Oh yeah, I'll still buy Apple, as will BYU. Even though my first reaction was... Mmm, do I want to buy from this company again? Thankfully my right side prevailed as not buying from Apple, the worlds greatest computer and OS manufacturer, will prove nothing. All that is required is a polite comment. Which I hope this is.
Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, ... all countries where gay mariage is legal. As it should be. Why discriminate? Good for Apple to speak out!
And why should children not be taught about gay marriage in school? If they have a friend in their class with two mothers or fathers, why should that be ignored? Education is the only way to become more tolerant and open minded!
This from a company who had a rainbow Apple logo in the past. With the company so close to the city of Nancy boys ( San Francisco) got to figure of them whispered the idea to Jobs when they were sharing a night of love. He is way too thin and stylish to be hetro.
The Republik of Kalifornia is already the laughing stock of the nation leting the Nancy's marry will only add fuel to the fire. Why should a lousy 2 % of the population dictate terms to the majority?
Ban gay marriage and execute those 4 judges who saw that we voted against this before and told us our votes do not count
What a waste of money.
For you Nancy boys who want gay marriage go suck a pickle
Damn!!!... and on a first post too - gentlemen, start your engines!
A lot of guys like 'Slot C' if their girlfriend/wife doesn't mind. So what has that got to do with it. Besides, now much of your total life with a spouse is spent having sex as opposed to everything else. It's mostly about the everything else. Live and let live.
Point taken.
Men and women were also designed to go together because we are different in personality and spirit, and compliment each other. Little boys like adventure and shooting games and swashbuckling. Little girls like dressing pretty and twirling in tutus and playing house. When we grow older and find a partner, strength melds with beauty, and the two compliment each other and become one. Our differences complete us. Children need both as parents; they miss out on one or the other when there are only 2 dads or 2 moms.
It's been said that when a society begins to lose gender distinction, it's in its final throes. You can see it in progress in the great old U. S. of A.
Parents should have the right to teach their kids morals.
Parents have the responsibility to teach their kids morals. Allowing gay marriage doesn't change anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
Speaking of sheer stupidity, anyone who can't see that 'Tab A' was designed to go into 'Slot B'.......well.......
The argument of procreation being a requirement for marriage is weak. Procreation is only required to further the growth of the species, which is already growing too fast. If procreation isn't possible should sterile heterosexual people not be allowed to get married?
I do understand why various religions don't want to acknowledge certain legal unions as marriage, and I agree with that. The Catholic church won't marry various heterosexual couples if they aren't both Catholic. They have that right, but to not allow a legal union because of sexuality is a Civil Rights violation.
For comparison, it was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that interracial marriages were a civil right. How long before the Supreme Court makes it unconstitutional for those Red States to deny gay marriage?
Comments
This is not a political issue. It is one of human rights. Americans like to say they stand up for human rights around the world and yet when it comes to gay rights in their own country (or even rights for African Americans, for that matter), so many of them would deny two loving people from making a life-long commitment to each other. Yet, people like Brittany Spears can get married on a whim. Pure hypocrisy.
At least Britney could figure out the natural order of things....that a male and a female go together...
Speaking of sheer stupidity, anyone who can't see that 'Tab A' was designed to go into 'Slot B'.......well.......
A lot of guys like 'Slot C' if their girlfriend/wife doesn't mind. So what has that got to do with it. Besides, now much of your total life with a spouse is spent having sex as opposed to everything else. It's mostly about the everything else. Live and let live.
WTF is gay marriage? i mean if you wanna be with someone of your same sex for the rest of your live so be it, but why would they even want to get marry on top of that. Apple please stop flushing shareholders money down the toilet and let People do what ever the heck they wanna do as long as it doesn't affect the company
A little self contradictory there, fraklinc. Gay marriage is ... well... marriage. No different than mom and pops, really. Why anyone would prevent anyone to marry the one they love is completely beyond me. Why people feel the need to get married in the first place is also a little beyond me. I see it as a legal issue and in that respect I guess there is a point, but these days many courts recognize common law marriage so it all seems a little pointless. But as you say - each to his or her own. I assume that what you really disapprove of is marriage, not GAY marriage as you give the impression of doing. I understand that what you REALLY disapprove of is that Apple raised its voice, but to deny some people the right to get married and not others is as wrong as it is arrogant so I applaud Apple for taking a stand. Its not controversial - its just common sense and if there is anything we need more of in this world it is exactly that.
I take it you just went straight to the comments to post your flame without reading this bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE
You clearly are not familiar with what is going on in Massachusetts. Kindergarteners get a book about it. If it is legal, then teacher can legally teach about it. But, I must agree with the above post that this isn't really the place to debate the issue itself. I'll stop.
But I don't think corporations should get involved.
In reality, California gays and lesbians have been able to marry since 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom arranged for ceremonies at City Hall, which led to a landmark state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
Um, no we haven't
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...isco_marriages
There was a brief period where we could get married (but only in SF), then it got taken away and those who were married had their marriage licenses voided.
Apple has a very high percentage of LGBT employees. Good for Apple and standing up for their employees.
. . . there goes that big laptop contract at BYU! ;-)
Now that's funny!
But seriously, Apple's decision has made me a very proud stockholder indeed. I agree with their position that this is not a political issue, but a civil rights issue.
The guy who said the government has no business being involved in marriage is totally right. But as long as they are involved, then they've got to treat everyone the same. That's what freedom is all about: the freedom for you to hold an unpopular opinion and still be treated the same as those with popular opinions.
Yay Apple!
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.
Whether or not gay marriage is acceptable, such deception on the part of officials is not. And neither is AppleInsider's fawning reportage on an issue it knows to be two-sided. Sheesh, did Keith Olberman write this piece?
Apple's $100,000 contribution to the No on 8 campaign is significant because the effort to stop the proposition has been systematically outgunned by out-of-state religious groups, who have poured cash into TV advertisements that threaten dire consequences if gays' right to marry continue in the state. Among other claims, the ads state that if the proposition isn't passed, California schools will force children to study gay marriage.
That claim prompted California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell to announce that the proposition "has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful."
In reality, California gays and lesbians have been able to marry since 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom arranged for ceremonies at City Hall, which led to a landmark state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. None of the claims pushed by Prop 8 supporters have occurred over the last four years.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Why you (The States) haven´t come out of the middle ages yet regarding this issue I can´t understand???
THEREFORE I SAY GOOOOOO APPLE!!!!!!
Many children have had good upbringings and competent parenting from loving parents here, wether it was mom and mom or dad and dad parenting! IT´S ALL ABOUT THE LOVE!!! ...Not restrictions. No one can and should decide whom a person loves but the individual himself/herself!
Apple has gone "green". You don´t think that´s political!? Why is this so different? In the board room they have disgussed this and they also know that this will ensure them many new customers from generations to come. This is pleasing the youth... which is Apple´s future. So why not do the right thing AND win over a larger customer base?!
Don´t hide who you are...
I think more US companies should stand up for the human rights that is proudly claimed to be so superior by Americans.
The question here is whether a company should use its money, in a time of uncertainty to champion moral or ethical or whatever you classify gay marriage as an issue.
More companies need to support civil rights issues!
KRR
This is simply wrong.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. What's next......allowing people to get married to a member of their own familiy............or peradventure their dog (after all don't we love our animals),cat,etc.......My rights are being taken away when I can't marry a object. When,where does it stop? I love my toothpaste - can I marry that? Why not?
Apple should not be getting involved into politics. It will only divide and exclude people.
Look up reductio ad absurda if you can understand what it means
Both companies have a history of remaining politically neutral
And so they should have remained, just because both companies give equal rights to their employees, which indeed they should, does not mean that they should be making political statements that try to define the definition of marriage. A Union that was and always should be defined as being between a man and a woman.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti gay. I have a cousin who has compulsions and tendencies that way. He is an amazing person. A wonderful human being. He has every right to be accepted for what he chooses. But to me, he, as a person, and his choice of lifestyle are separate matters. I love him for who he is, but I can not endorse his chosen behavior. A behavior that seems to have been hijacked by a minority. Lets face it, if you have a natural tendency to alcoholism your loved and helped out. same for any other compulsion that can beset mankind, but mention same sex attraction as something different, as something that you just are and can't fight, and your shouted down by this minority. I know from first hand evidence what its like for people to fight same sex attraction feelings and I know there are plenty who do fight and who do win.
I know I'm going to get flamed for these statements, but so be it. However let it be known that I respect everyone and everyone's right to an opinion. I will not attack or ridicule anyone for their choices, everyone is a brother or sister, but as a matter of principle I cannot lay silent when people, or companies, support the redefinition of marriage and family.
Oh yeah, I'll still buy Apple, as will BYU. Even though my first reaction was... Mmm, do I want to buy from this company again?
All the best
Vote Yes on Prop 8
And why should children not be taught about gay marriage in school? If they have a friend in their class with two mothers or fathers, why should that be ignored? Education is the only way to become more tolerant and open minded!
This from a company who had a rainbow Apple logo in the past. With the company so close to the city of Nancy boys ( San Francisco) got to figure of them whispered the idea to Jobs when they were sharing a night of love. He is way too thin and stylish to be hetro.
The Republik of Kalifornia is already the laughing stock of the nation leting the Nancy's marry will only add fuel to the fire. Why should a lousy 2 % of the population dictate terms to the majority?
Ban gay marriage and execute those 4 judges who saw that we voted against this before and told us our votes do not count
What a waste of money.
For you Nancy boys who want gay marriage go suck a pickle
Damn!!!... and on a first post too - gentlemen, start your engines!
A lot of guys like 'Slot C' if their girlfriend/wife doesn't mind. So what has that got to do with it. Besides, now much of your total life with a spouse is spent having sex as opposed to everything else. It's mostly about the everything else. Live and let live.
Point taken.
Men and women were also designed to go together because we are different in personality and spirit, and compliment each other. Little boys like adventure and shooting games and swashbuckling. Little girls like dressing pretty and twirling in tutus and playing house. When we grow older and find a partner, strength melds with beauty, and the two compliment each other and become one. Our differences complete us. Children need both as parents; they miss out on one or the other when there are only 2 dads or 2 moms.
It's been said that when a society begins to lose gender distinction, it's in its final throes. You can see it in progress in the great old U. S. of A.
Parents should have the right to teach their kids morals.
Parents have the responsibility to teach their kids morals. Allowing gay marriage doesn't change anything.
Speaking of sheer stupidity, anyone who can't see that 'Tab A' was designed to go into 'Slot B'.......well.......
The argument of procreation being a requirement for marriage is weak. Procreation is only required to further the growth of the species, which is already growing too fast. If procreation isn't possible should sterile heterosexual people not be allowed to get married?
I do understand why various religions don't want to acknowledge certain legal unions as marriage, and I agree with that. The Catholic church won't marry various heterosexual couples if they aren't both Catholic. They have that right, but to not allow a legal union because of sexuality is a Civil Rights violation.
For comparison, it was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that interracial marriages were a civil right. How long before the Supreme Court makes it unconstitutional for those Red States to deny gay marriage?