Wow, Apple, for a while I actually thought you guys were smart. When a computer company spends their money in a controversial move, you're gonna get half of your users to be happier with you, and you're gonna get the other half of your users who were gonna buy that new Mac to think twice before supporting a company that does something they're morally opposed to.
As for me, I think I just became a little bit less of an Apple fanboy.
Same here. If Apple goes pushing the gay agenda, I might have to switch to Linux or something...
You're a riot. LOL! Love the tongue-in-cheek. (or should I say, the penishead in cheek).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Reich
Well I ain't shy.
I still love my state but damn not going lie down and let 2% tell the rest of us what to do. Looks like the Nancy's can move to other more tolerant states.
A neighbor had a his sign stolen from his house in support of the ban on the Nancy's and someone stole it, apparently freedom a speech is only for the Nancy's. I told them I would aim one of my security cameras in their direction to catch the rump ranger who stole it and we will deal with him instead of 911.
It's my right to teach them the morals I believe in.
Your comments reminds me of Brown v. Board of Education, in which people, like yourself, thought it was wrong for their white kids to be taught alongside black kids. You can home school them or send them to private religious schools that will surely teach your children that being gay is a disease of the brain and/or for those who haven't accepted [insert deity here] as their lord and saviour.
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.
That isn't true. Churches have a right to not marry whomever they choose. A Catholic priest won't marry a Protestant and Jew. All this does is make it legal for same sex couples to get the same rights as opposite sex couples. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married, but they deserve that right under the law.
The side effect of what you'll see, is that there will be churches that that will marry homosexuals, because they want to, not because they have to. There are apparently many gay people that are also religious, too.
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.
Are you kidding? Consensual sex with children? That is not called discrimination - its protection. I realize you are a fundamentalist Christian and cannot be argued with but please be a little self discriminating before you spew forth
Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.
Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?
You need to brush up on the subtleties of the evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection. Sounds like you learned about it in bible class. Human variability is a marvelous and complex phenomenon, not the click-clack, nickle-in-the-slot simplicity you propose. Seemingly non-productive variations continue to appear. They may not favor reproduction, but they are not extinguished.
Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.
Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?
I appreciate your civility. However, what Darwinian evolution ASKS (as opposed to tells us) is: why does homosexuality persist despite not directly contributing to procreation? Continuation of a species as complex as human beings relies on more than just whether or not the two genders mate. (Do those "special" doting Aunts and Uncles help build a strong family?, etc.) Because homosexuality persists, (and because I am gay), I think it is important to ask and understand what homosexuality brings to humanity before we try to eliminate it.
Or it really may not matter at all. If it is truly neutral, I believe Darwinian evolution allows for inconsequential things to continue (or not.)
Or maybe homosexuality has benefits in the whole scheme of life, a benefit not obvious to the population (such as sickle-cell anemia). There was research recently indicating that homosexuals benefited heterosexual couples in that there was little to no competition with the heterosexuals yet they contributed with parenting, food gathering and protection, thus increasing viability of offspring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.
Are you kidding? Consensual sex with children? That is not called discrimination - its protection. I realize you are a fundamentalist Christian and cannot be argued with but please be a little self discriminating before you spew forth
"Argued with" is the wrong term. He can't be 'reasoned with". He's comparing the nonconsensual union of children and livestock to the consensual union of two adults. By his argument, he should let God do the discrimination, but seems to rather do it himself as if he were God.
I appreciate your civility. However, what Darwinian evolution ASKS (as opposed to tells us) is: why does homosexuality persist despite not directly contributing to procreation? Continuation of a species as complex as human beings relies on more than just whether or not the two genders mate. (Do those "special" doting Aunts and Uncles help build a strong family?, etc.) Because homosexuality persists, (and because I am gay), I think it is important to ask and understand what homosexuality brings to humanity before we try to eliminate it.
Or it really may not matter at all. If it is truly neutral, I believe Darwinian evolution allows for inconsequential things to continue (or not.)
Wow, your response to Frugality was so much more elegant and human than mine. Thanks.
The biggest issue is that gay marriage will be taught to kids in school (as early as Kindergarten).
That's a lie on the part of the folks pushing Prop 8, and it looks like you bought into it. You're just parroting their false propaganda.
Nothing about marriage is taught in california schools now, and that won't change regardless of whether gay marriage is legal or not there.
Seriously, who as a kid went to school and remembers "Today we're going to study MARRIAGE"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
I don't understand the need for gay people to get married. The only reason that gays want it is because heterosexuals have it. I think we should just get rid of marriage altogether from the state and federal level. Everyone files their income tax as an individual, and gets their own health insurance as an individual. You want to get married? Fine, go do it in your favorite place of worship or whatever. There would be no benefit to being married as far as our government goes. Go marry a goat for all anyone cares.
And throw away things like inheritance, custody of kids, and the right to make medical decisions for that person? That would be a complete mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mebbert
You clearly are not familiar with what is going on in Massachusetts. Kindergarteners get a book about it.
And why exactly are you under the impression that california would be obligated to do something just because massachusetts does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by revjim
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.
Source? Mormons alone have donated over 19 million dollars to promote it.
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.
You may not be Familiar with the Supreme Court Case Plessy v. Ferguson, so I'll fill you in: It set into law that it was OK to have "separate 'but equal' facilities" for a class of citizen. What it did was essentially legalize prejudice. They were "different" so it was OK to give them less, to treat them like they didn't matter.
There's a correlation here.
The homos are not asking the heteros to give up marriage so that ONLY the homos can do it. They're asking for equality. They're asking for the same protections and rights as everyone else has, and since it's "the same," it should be called the same as well. If you call it different ? if you say it's "Separate BUT EQUAL" ? well, we've all heard that line before, right? And it just wasn't very true.
Why should WE ALL support it, even if we're not gay and maybe even disapprove of the lifestyle? In order to defend OUR rights, too.
If you begin to legally create a second class citizenship again, you're walking a very slippery slope. You want to hold a people down because they're "different," and this is OK with you because you're not "different." But I ask, what happens when later, someone wants to write ANOTHER law that discriminates against a class of citizen that's "different," and this time it's YOU? Will you still support it? Will you vote "yes" on it when it's limiting YOUR rights, and creating a schism between you and society, something you always thought yourself a part of, even though you're not exactly like everyone else? You're different too, don't forget that. You're blond or brunette, you have different colored eyes than your neighbor. You don't believe in the same church, perhaps. We're ALL to some extent different.
There's also the parallel to nazi germany here, as well:
"First They Came..."
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
_________-------_________
Such hatred for others, who wish you no harm. It makes no logical sense.
Same here. If Apple goes pushing the gay agenda, I might have to switch to Linux or something...
I wonder what the Gay Agenda could be? Could you elaborate? I know a lot of gay people and in my experience their agenda is pretty much like everybody else's, you know, like you. What's your agenda? Or what is the Hetero Agenda, for that matter.
Good points... However my money going towards something I don't support discusses me.
It is not really your money any more. Your money went to purchase a product you liked. If I thought that I had to think through and validate the morals of each company I purchased a product from, I would probably starve.
I believe the best darwinian explanation of homosexuality I've found is that homosexuals tend to act as support for their family and extended family (there is statistical evidence for this outside modern societies) since they're less likely to have kids. Their relatives are therefore more likely to have offspring that will survive and so similar genes are spread which indirectly propagates genetic homosexual predispositions.
I don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage, let the 1% have their silly little weddings and find something of relevance to occupy your time
"Argued with" is the wrong term. He can't be 'reasoned with". He's comparing the nonconsensual union of children and livestock to the consensual union of two adults. By his argument, he should let God do the discrimination, but seems to rather do it himself as if he were God.
You speaketh better than me I love the term "Nonconsensual union with livestock" - hilarious. I hope his God does not not say Yes with Love with the same force he says No with love. It sounds very scary.
I wonder what the Gay Agenda could be? Could you elaborate? I know a lot of gay people and in my experience their agenda is pretty much like everybody else's, you know, like you. What's your agenda? Or what is the Hetero Agenda, for that matter.
JOKE: a little self deprecating humor to highlight the ridiculousness of the term: The Gay Agenda
The Homosexual Agenda
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the US Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels
5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership
6) Bulldoze all houses of worship
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers
2:30 PM Get Forty Winks of Beauty Rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
Wow, your response to Frugality was so much more elegant and human than mine. Thanks.
Therein lies the problem....the arguments are of human origin. Seek the arguments that are God's arguments. I'd love to go more into that, but I have the feeling that wouldn't go over well with this crowd... (and could get banned or locked, because we live in an intolerant society...)
Comments
Wow, Apple, for a while I actually thought you guys were smart. When a computer company spends their money in a controversial move, you're gonna get half of your users to be happier with you, and you're gonna get the other half of your users who were gonna buy that new Mac to think twice before supporting a company that does something they're morally opposed to.
As for me, I think I just became a little bit less of an Apple fanboy.
Same here. If Apple goes pushing the gay agenda, I might have to switch to Linux or something...
Well I ain't shy.
I still love my state but damn not going lie down and let 2% tell the rest of us what to do. Looks like the Nancy's can move to other more tolerant states.
A neighbor had a his sign stolen from his house in support of the ban on the Nancy's and someone stole it, apparently freedom a speech is only for the Nancy's. I told them I would aim one of my security cameras in their direction to catch the rump ranger who stole it and we will deal with him instead of 911.
Same here. If Apple goes pushing the gay agenda, I might have to switch to Linux or something...
The gay agenda...now if they start pushing the hetero agenda we're all fucked.
oh wait, thats what this society has pushed..
and wait, we are all fucked.
It's my right to teach them the morals I believe in.
Your comments reminds me of Brown v. Board of Education, in which people, like yourself, thought it was wrong for their white kids to be taught alongside black kids. You can home school them or send them to private religious schools that will surely teach your children that being gay is a disease of the brain and/or for those who haven't accepted [insert deity here] as their lord and saviour.
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.
That isn't true. Churches have a right to not marry whomever they choose. A Catholic priest won't marry a Protestant and Jew. All this does is make it legal for same sex couples to get the same rights as opposite sex couples. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married, but they deserve that right under the law.
The side effect of what you'll see, is that there will be churches that that will marry homosexuals, because they want to, not because they have to. There are apparently many gay people that are also religious, too.
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.
Are you kidding? Consensual sex with children? That is not called discrimination - its protection. I realize you are a fundamentalist Christian and cannot be argued with but please be a little self discriminating before you spew forth
Because in many polygamous groups, the women are exploited and treated as subservients.
By that argument, Islamic heterosexual marriages would have to be banned as well.
Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.
Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?
You need to brush up on the subtleties of the evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection. Sounds like you learned about it in bible class. Human variability is a marvelous and complex phenomenon, not the click-clack, nickle-in-the-slot simplicity you propose. Seemingly non-productive variations continue to appear. They may not favor reproduction, but they are not extinguished.
Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.
Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?
I appreciate your civility. However, what Darwinian evolution ASKS (as opposed to tells us) is: why does homosexuality persist despite not directly contributing to procreation? Continuation of a species as complex as human beings relies on more than just whether or not the two genders mate. (Do those "special" doting Aunts and Uncles help build a strong family?, etc.) Because homosexuality persists, (and because I am gay), I think it is important to ask and understand what homosexuality brings to humanity before we try to eliminate it.
Or it really may not matter at all. If it is truly neutral, I believe Darwinian evolution allows for inconsequential things to continue (or not.)
Funny you should bring up that argument. Darwinian evolution would tell us that homosexuality should have passed out of the gene pool as soon as it developed, because only creatures that were better at breeding (and staying alive long enough to do so) would pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Homosexuality shouldn't exist if Darwinian evolution is true.
Or maybe homosexuality isn't genetic....?
Are you kidding? Consensual sex with children? That is not called discrimination - its protection. I realize you are a fundamentalist Christian and cannot be argued with but please be a little self discriminating before you spew forth
"Argued with" is the wrong term. He can't be 'reasoned with". He's comparing the nonconsensual union of children and livestock to the consensual union of two adults. By his argument, he should let God do the discrimination, but seems to rather do it himself as if he were God.
I appreciate your civility. However, what Darwinian evolution ASKS (as opposed to tells us) is: why does homosexuality persist despite not directly contributing to procreation? Continuation of a species as complex as human beings relies on more than just whether or not the two genders mate. (Do those "special" doting Aunts and Uncles help build a strong family?, etc.) Because homosexuality persists, (and because I am gay), I think it is important to ask and understand what homosexuality brings to humanity before we try to eliminate it.
Or it really may not matter at all. If it is truly neutral, I believe Darwinian evolution allows for inconsequential things to continue (or not.)
Wow, your response to Frugality was so much more elegant and human than mine. Thanks.
The biggest issue is that gay marriage will be taught to kids in school (as early as Kindergarten).
That's a lie on the part of the folks pushing Prop 8, and it looks like you bought into it. You're just parroting their false propaganda.
Nothing about marriage is taught in california schools now, and that won't change regardless of whether gay marriage is legal or not there.
Seriously, who as a kid went to school and remembers "Today we're going to study MARRIAGE"?
I don't understand the need for gay people to get married. The only reason that gays want it is because heterosexuals have it. I think we should just get rid of marriage altogether from the state and federal level. Everyone files their income tax as an individual, and gets their own health insurance as an individual. You want to get married? Fine, go do it in your favorite place of worship or whatever. There would be no benefit to being married as far as our government goes. Go marry a goat for all anyone cares.
And throw away things like inheritance, custody of kids, and the right to make medical decisions for that person? That would be a complete mess.
You clearly are not familiar with what is going on in Massachusetts. Kindergarteners get a book about it.
And why exactly are you under the impression that california would be obligated to do something just because massachusetts does it?
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.
Source? Mormons alone have donated over 19 million dollars to promote it.
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.
You may not be Familiar with the Supreme Court Case Plessy v. Ferguson, so I'll fill you in: It set into law that it was OK to have "separate 'but equal' facilities" for a class of citizen. What it did was essentially legalize prejudice. They were "different" so it was OK to give them less, to treat them like they didn't matter.
There's a correlation here.
The homos are not asking the heteros to give up marriage so that ONLY the homos can do it. They're asking for equality. They're asking for the same protections and rights as everyone else has, and since it's "the same," it should be called the same as well. If you call it different ? if you say it's "Separate BUT EQUAL" ? well, we've all heard that line before, right? And it just wasn't very true.
Why should WE ALL support it, even if we're not gay and maybe even disapprove of the lifestyle? In order to defend OUR rights, too.
If you begin to legally create a second class citizenship again, you're walking a very slippery slope. You want to hold a people down because they're "different," and this is OK with you because you're not "different." But I ask, what happens when later, someone wants to write ANOTHER law that discriminates against a class of citizen that's "different," and this time it's YOU? Will you still support it? Will you vote "yes" on it when it's limiting YOUR rights, and creating a schism between you and society, something you always thought yourself a part of, even though you're not exactly like everyone else? You're different too, don't forget that. You're blond or brunette, you have different colored eyes than your neighbor. You don't believe in the same church, perhaps. We're ALL to some extent different.
There's also the parallel to nazi germany here, as well:
"First They Came..."
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
_________-------_________
Such hatred for others, who wish you no harm. It makes no logical sense.
Same here. If Apple goes pushing the gay agenda, I might have to switch to Linux or something...
I wonder what the Gay Agenda could be? Could you elaborate? I know a lot of gay people and in my experience their agenda is pretty much like everybody else's, you know, like you. What's your agenda? Or what is the Hetero Agenda, for that matter.
Good points... However my money going towards something I don't support discusses me.
It is not really your money any more. Your money went to purchase a product you liked. If I thought that I had to think through and validate the morals of each company I purchased a product from, I would probably starve.
I don't see what the big deal is about gay marriage, let the 1% have their silly little weddings and find something of relevance to occupy your time
"Argued with" is the wrong term. He can't be 'reasoned with". He's comparing the nonconsensual union of children and livestock to the consensual union of two adults. By his argument, he should let God do the discrimination, but seems to rather do it himself as if he were God.
You speaketh better than me
I wonder what the Gay Agenda could be? Could you elaborate? I know a lot of gay people and in my experience their agenda is pretty much like everybody else's, you know, like you. What's your agenda? Or what is the Hetero Agenda, for that matter.
JOKE: a little self deprecating humor to highlight the ridiculousness of the term: The Gay Agenda
The Homosexual Agenda
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the US Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels
5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership
6) Bulldoze all houses of worship
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers
2:30 PM Get Forty Winks of Beauty Rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)
Wow, your response to Frugality was so much more elegant and human than mine. Thanks.
Therein lies the problem....the arguments are of human origin. Seek the arguments that are God's arguments. I'd love to go more into that, but I have the feeling that wouldn't go over well with this crowd...