I'm not going to debate the issue of gay marriage here on these boards because it's pointless. Both sides are set in their ways and feel that they're right and/or morally superior. So, have at it, guys and gals.
instead, I will offer a couple of links here, then do something more productive. I will continue to donate money to No on Prop 8, and work the phone banks to call undecided voters in order to counter the lies--yes, LIES--that the Yes on Prop 8 folks are pushing in their ads.
Don't believe me? That's fine. Here's a little video that exposes the five lies that the pro-8 crowd is selling you, and the truth behind the claims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-pSye9W7FY
I applaud Apple for their role in stopping discriminatory legislation, which is motivated by fear tactics. It's the worst kind of politics, no matter what issue you're dealing with.
GTSC
Cool that you won't lower yourself to the lowly level of debate. Really appreciate it.
Because when the kids at school find out the adopted kid has 2 gays for parents he will get his butt kicked all thru school.
Plus what a role model to follow, if Jr. wasn't gay he or she will be by the time there done. If it's a infant it will think it's okay for 2 males to kiss each other. After that it's a short ride to being a hair stylist.
hello flame boy.
I wonder if all the guys on here are nice to you and flirty, will that turn you? I mean, according to you, thats really all it will take.
Maybe you shouldnt comment on things you have no understanding of, nor inclination to try and understand.
but then, you are just a troll.
hows that shaved head you must have with a name like that? i mean what are we to take from that? oh noesss... don't gays have shaved heads too? oh gee its already happening to you... you are turning... you really need to leave here pronto before the transformation is complete.
I object to my government blessing as acceptable what I view as immoral and against biological nature.
Dear Newly Minted WindowsAnt:
You need to take a much closer and more serious look at both biology and nature if you think they are a source for moral behavior. I can suggest several universities (other than Bob Jones and Oral Roberts) who can help.
Dear God, please don't debate the merits of Gay Marriage on this website. Write a letter to the editor but seriously folks, this debate is futile. 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. It sends a strong message, to be sure, but is it the right message to be sending at this time? Wouldn't that money be better spent feeding the poor of this country than establishing an even stronger rapport with the gay community?
I guarantee this thread disappears sooner than the DVD vs. Blu-Ray thread.
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.
hold on, god doesnt exist, shes just made up and imaginary.
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.
But isn't it society that defines this? we give boys cars and guns to play with, we give girls dolls to play with, we teach them that this is supposed to be what they ought to do.
I say it's unethical to deny people the same rights you have to a full, happy life simply because you don't care for their natural race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, weight, gender, cranium phrenology or any other aspect of their person that is biologically originated.
Explain why?! It's not a matter of affecting one on a personal level, but it will eventually as the society reaches lower and lower levels. If you don't care that the mores of the society go to shit then by all means let's all support this.
Want proof? All societies of the past have been destroyed solely due to the lowering of the mores of that society. Every single one.
It's unethical for two members of the same sex to engage in sexual intercourse let alone marriage.
unethical? How? Because "God" said so? (if you like the old testament so much, shouldn't you be a Muslim or a Jew?)
I do care about the mores of society and I don't want society "to go to shit". The problem here is that you can provide no logical argument for how homosexuality harms society.
What exactly are you so afraid of? Do you think gay people want to make everyone gay? I'm not afraid of anything turning me gay, why are you?
I say it's unethical to deny people the same rights you have to a full, happy life simply because you don't care for their natural race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, weight, gender, cranium phrenology or any other aspect of their person that is biologically originated.
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.
What happens in Massachusetts, stays in Massachusetts.
The biggest issue is that gay marriage will be taught to kids in school (as early as Kindergarten). Parents should have the right to teach their kids morals. It should not be controlled by the government. For that matter, I don't think marriage should be taught at all in school, but I guess that's for another debate.
One of the biggest issues is the idiocy of statements like this. The moronic "Yes on 8" crowd (those Bible-thumping intolerant folks who claim to know the word of the Lord) are using this "they's a-gonna teach our youngin's the gay thing after 'rithmetic class!!!" as a smokescreen to hide their bigotry and intolerance. You, sir, are a gullible fool for falling for it. Shame on you.
I somehow don't remember Christ teaching intolerance but that's another story.
Thank you, Apple for taking a stand against hatred.
For 20 plus years I have been a Mac user and I am too familiar with the short comings of the MS OS and too accustom to the advantages of Mac to change. Although I have rooted for Mac all these years, this is one time I hope Apple looses and looses badly. There are some things that are wrong and no mater how much they me be justified, they are still wrong. This Gay thing is wrong.
When MS stole the Mac OS we all knew it, no matter what they claimed. It was stealing and wrong. Well things are starting to turn around after many years. I have lived long enough to tell those who will listen wrong does not win in the end. IT never has and it never will. I do not have to prove that history proves it far better than I ever could. It may take time but right always wins.
Respectfully submitted, knowing others will not agree.
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.
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 honestly can't believe the ignorance and bigotry ON AN APPLE FORUM!
I also think you need to revise your study.
Evolution by its definition produces "non standard" that would be, in this instance, those unlikely to reproduce, its one of the basic BASIC principals.
---
Blinkered BLINKERED unthinking people posting here..
and from a group of people who hold up the value to think different..
Last time I checked I was a sentient being not an animal. But hey, you are free to be whatever you want to be.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
It's simple. Government has no business whatsoever being involved in the issue of marriage as a religious ceremony, but since they are it's discriminatory.
Gov't needs to get out of the "marriage business". I consider it a legal contract, the whole church involvement thing is just thousands of years of hocus-pocus sprinkled on top.
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?
Comments
I'm not going to debate the issue of gay marriage here on these boards because it's pointless. Both sides are set in their ways and feel that they're right and/or morally superior. So, have at it, guys and gals.
instead, I will offer a couple of links here, then do something more productive. I will continue to donate money to No on Prop 8, and work the phone banks to call undecided voters in order to counter the lies--yes, LIES--that the Yes on Prop 8 folks are pushing in their ads.
Don't believe me? That's fine. Here's a little video that exposes the five lies that the pro-8 crowd is selling you, and the truth behind the claims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-pSye9W7FY
Oh, and the Yes on 8 crowd are now resorting to blackmail-like tactics to gain support: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/23/4145
I applaud Apple for their role in stopping discriminatory legislation, which is motivated by fear tactics. It's the worst kind of politics, no matter what issue you're dealing with.
GTSC
Cool that you won't lower yourself to the lowly level of debate. Really appreciate it.
Because when the kids at school find out the adopted kid has 2 gays for parents he will get his butt kicked all thru school.
Plus what a role model to follow, if Jr. wasn't gay he or she will be by the time there done. If it's a infant it will think it's okay for 2 males to kiss each other. After that it's a short ride to being a hair stylist.
hello flame boy.
I wonder if all the guys on here are nice to you and flirty, will that turn you? I mean, according to you, thats really all it will take.
Maybe you shouldnt comment on things you have no understanding of, nor inclination to try and understand.
but then, you are just a troll.
hows that shaved head you must have with a name like that? i mean what are we to take from that? oh noesss... don't gays have shaved heads too? oh gee its already happening to you... you are turning... you really need to leave here pronto before the transformation is complete.
BYE BYE
I object to my government blessing as acceptable what I view as immoral and against biological nature.
Dear Newly Minted WindowsAnt:
You need to take a much closer and more serious look at both biology and nature if you think they are a source for moral behavior. I can suggest several universities (other than Bob Jones and Oral Roberts) who can help.
Dear God, please don't debate the merits of Gay Marriage on this website. Write a letter to the editor but seriously folks, this debate is futile. 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. It sends a strong message, to be sure, but is it the right message to be sending at this time? Wouldn't that money be better spent feeding the poor of this country than establishing an even stronger rapport with the gay community?
I guarantee this thread disappears sooner than the DVD vs. Blu-Ray thread.
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.
hold on, god doesnt exist, shes just made up and imaginary.
Point taken.
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.
But isn't it society that defines this? we give boys cars and guns to play with, we give girls dolls to play with, we teach them that this is supposed to be what they ought to do.
I say it's unethical to deny people the same rights you have to a full, happy life simply because you don't care for their natural race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, weight, gender, cranium phrenology or any other aspect of their person that is biologically originated.
I love this guy! Seriously, I have a mind crush.
Explain why?! It's not a matter of affecting one on a personal level, but it will eventually as the society reaches lower and lower levels. If you don't care that the mores of the society go to shit then by all means let's all support this.
Want proof? All societies of the past have been destroyed solely due to the lowering of the mores of that society. Every single one.
It's unethical for two members of the same sex to engage in sexual intercourse let alone marriage.
unethical? How? Because "God" said so? (if you like the old testament so much, shouldn't you be a Muslim or a Jew?)
I do care about the mores of society and I don't want society "to go to shit". The problem here is that you can provide no logical argument for how homosexuality harms society.
What exactly are you so afraid of? Do you think gay people want to make everyone gay? I'm not afraid of anything turning me gay, why are you?
I say it's unethical to deny people the same rights you have to a full, happy life simply because you don't care for their natural race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, weight, gender, cranium phrenology or any other aspect of their person that is biologically originated.
error
Good for Apple!
What a silly non-issue to be putting into the constitution! Taking away rights... for no benefit at all.
100% agreed. 'Nuff said.
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.
What happens in Massachusetts, stays in Massachusetts.
the Nancy's
The plural of "Nancy" is "Nancies"
The biggest issue is that gay marriage will be taught to kids in school (as early as Kindergarten). Parents should have the right to teach their kids morals. It should not be controlled by the government. For that matter, I don't think marriage should be taught at all in school, but I guess that's for another debate.
One of the biggest issues is the idiocy of statements like this. The moronic "Yes on 8" crowd (those Bible-thumping intolerant folks who claim to know the word of the Lord) are using this "they's a-gonna teach our youngin's the gay thing after 'rithmetic class!!!" as a smokescreen to hide their bigotry and intolerance. You, sir, are a gullible fool for falling for it. Shame on you.
I somehow don't remember Christ teaching intolerance but that's another story.
Thank you, Apple for taking a stand against hatred.
When MS stole the Mac OS we all knew it, no matter what they claimed. It was stealing and wrong. Well things are starting to turn around after many years. I have lived long enough to tell those who will listen wrong does not win in the end. IT never has and it never will. I do not have to prove that history proves it far better than I ever could. It may take time but right always wins.
Respectfully submitted, knowing others will not agree.
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.
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 honestly can't believe the ignorance and bigotry ON AN APPLE FORUM!
I also think you need to revise your study.
Evolution by its definition produces "non standard" that would be, in this instance, those unlikely to reproduce, its one of the basic BASIC principals.
---
Blinkered BLINKERED unthinking people posting here..
and from a group of people who hold up the value to think different..
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.
All I know is I am Voting for Ralph Nader and that Barack Obama is a liar, Biden is a plagiarist, McCain is batshit crazy, and Palin is brainless.
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ!
Oh and Fuck Morality
whos morality? yours?
in that case i agree.
Last time I checked I was a sentient being not an animal. But hey, you are free to be whatever you want to be.
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.
It's simple. Government has no business whatsoever being involved in the issue of marriage as a religious ceremony, but since they are it's discriminatory.
Gov't needs to get out of the "marriage business". I consider it a legal contract, the whole church involvement thing is just thousands of years of hocus-pocus sprinkled on top.
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?